FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Norway deal instead of Brexit
Norway deal instead of Brexit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Back away slowly from any Brexit related shenanigans. So much better for the blood pressure and mental health. "Also shouldn't this be in the politics forum 
I come in here for a bit of a giggle..
Brexit isnt even funny anymore  | |||
| |||
| |||
"What a mess we are in, Brexit or now it seems our paliment elected ministers can overturn the referendum and instigate a deal similar to Norway or Iceland They are governed by legislation laid down by the EU, yet are not part of the EU? But because they aren’t member states have bossy in the new laws introduced!! They are still governed by constitutional rights of the EU allowing individuals from the EU free access to their country etc.. What the hell sort of deal is that?? This is getting ridiculous,we voted to leave, now parliament are going to overturns democratic vote for this !!! Sorry to harp on but feel you all should know whst is likely to happen" The vote was to leave. Unfortunately the vote wasn’t to leave under the precise agreed terms that you or anyone else might have preferred. So the deal always had to be negotiated. And it was always going to be a nonsense, as clearly the benefits of remaining outweigh the benefits of leaving. So the Government has wasted two years trying its best to negotiate to retain most of the benefits of staying, even though we wanted to leave. And the EU quite rightly laughed. And there isn’t really anything to overturn anyway, because the referendum was only advisory anyway. The Government has no legal or moral compulsion to heed that advice. This is worth a watch: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament." How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. | |||
"We were never going to be offered a favourable deal. The deal on the table is a disaster but we run the risk of: a. Accepting a handcuffed Brexit. b. A railroaded no brexit as it is better to retract our exit than be handcuffed. The option of a No Deal Brexit is being pushed aside as Remain MP's and Europe are hoping everyone defeats the Deal, ask for another referendum with a: A. Forget it, run back to Europe. B. Accept the deal (Run back to Europe in Handcuffs). C. No deal "Crash out". Even with a split of 33% each, it will be argued that 66% wanted ties with Europe, so why leave. Everything is pointing to Remain. If Europe only need 90 minutes dondecide they like May's deal, it cannot possibly be in our interests. We're fucked." Of your 3 options there, B is leaving on May's deal and C is leaving with no deal. That would make 66% in favour of leaving. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. " Indeed, there was nothing illegal about the referendum at all, yes it was advisory only but the Government said they would abide by the result but there was nothing illegal about it at all. | |||
"What a mess we are in, Brexit or now it seems our paliment elected ministers can overturn the referendum and instigate a deal similar to Norway or Iceland They are governed by legislation laid down by the EU, yet are not part of the EU? But because they aren’t member states have bossy in the new laws introduced!! They are still governed by constitutional rights of the EU allowing individuals from the EU free access to their country etc.. What the hell sort of deal is that?? This is getting ridiculous,we voted to leave, now parliament are going to overturns democratic vote for this !!! Sorry to harp on but feel you all should know whst is likely to happen" At the moment, it's either the May deal or we leave without a deal. The Government does not the process to overturn that. It's a legal requirement until Parliament decided otherwise by passing a new statute. | |||
"We were never going to be offered a favourable deal. The deal on the table is a disaster but we run the risk of: a. Accepting a handcuffed Brexit. b. A railroaded no brexit as it is better to retract our exit than be handcuffed. The option of a No Deal Brexit is being pushed aside as Remain MP's and Europe are hoping everyone defeats the Deal, ask for another referendum with a: A. Forget it, run back to Europe. B. Accept the deal (Run back to Europe in Handcuffs). C. No deal "Crash out". Even with a split of 33% each, it will be argued that 66% wanted ties with Europe, so why leave. Everything is pointing to Remain. If Europe only need 90 minutes dondecide they like May's deal, it cannot possibly be in our interests. We're fucked. Of your 3 options there, B is leaving on May's deal and C is leaving with no deal. That would make 66% in favour of leaving." Aha! Thats the cunning part. Leaving under Mays Deal isn't really leaving is it? | |||
"What a mess we are in, Brexit or now it seems our paliment elected ministers can overturn the referendum and instigate a deal similar to Norway or Iceland They are governed by legislation laid down by the EU, yet are not part of the EU? But because they aren’t member states have bossy in the new laws introduced!! They are still governed by constitutional rights of the EU allowing individuals from the EU free access to their country etc.. What the hell sort of deal is that?? This is getting ridiculous,we voted to leave, now parliament are going to overturns democratic vote for this !!! Sorry to harp on but feel you all should know whst is likely to happen" As to what the UK can or can't do all lies with the Northern Ireland border issue. The Norway model is two fold... 1. They are members of EFTA, a tiny trading bloc that doesn't lock you into anything like the EU does. 2. For Norway to have access to the EU's Single Market Norway had to also join the EEA. By also joining the EEA you then have to accept the 4 Freedom's but as it isn't a customs Union Norway can also strike their own trade deals. It all depends on the Irish border , the main argument is that we have to have a customs Union to avoid a hard border, some say we don't need a customs Union, so until that's sorted out we really don't know our options properly. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. " There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues." Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition." True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. | |||
 | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget." Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues." Which Leave campaign? If you're referring to Leave.EU then that wasn't the official leave campaign. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. " It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. " What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Which Leave campaign? If you're referring to Leave.EU then that wasn't the official leave campaign. " I’m referring to the Vote Leave campaign. Either way, if people are voting for something based lies and bullshit, then democracy has gone wrong somewhere. | |||
" Which Leave campaign? If you're referring to Leave.EU then that wasn't the official leave campaign. I’m referring to the Vote Leave campaign. Either way, if people are voting for something based lies and bullshit, then democracy has gone wrong somewhere." Whereas the remain campaign was the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you remainers are really beyond hope if you believe that | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false?" I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. " All legal so put up and stop moaning. The law is the UK law so if you don't like UK SOVEREIGN LAW then leave. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. Indeed, there was nothing illegal about the referendum at all, yes it was advisory only but the Government said they would abide by the result but there was nothing illegal about it at all." Apart from Leave breaking electoral law 11 times, as has been proven? | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. " It’s like the thing about “taking back control” and having our own laws. As far as I know we have plenty of our own laws anyway. And successive U.K. governments voted in favour of around 95% of EU legislation and against only 2%. In discussions like this ask for, I dunno, five or so if the worst EU “laws” that people disagree with and it usually goes strangely quiet. | |||
" Which Leave campaign? If you're referring to Leave.EU then that wasn't the official leave campaign. I’m referring to the Vote Leave campaign. Either way, if people are voting for something based lies and bullshit, then democracy has gone wrong somewhere. Whereas the remain campaign was the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you remainers are really beyond hope if you believe that" What would you say were the, I dunno, five or so of the worst lies told by the remain side? At worst some of the economic predictions may have been worst case, but no-one has a crystal ball as to the exact outcome, pretty much every independent economic expert agreed we’d be worse off. Have you watched the short film I posted earlier? If you would like to watch it and come back and talk about the lies presented it, I’ll be all ears.... | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition." But it was laid down what the spending limits were for each campaign and where, legally, that money could be raised from. But the Leave campaign over spent by £675,000 and raised £8,000,000 from illegal sources. That's why the the referendum is likely to be declared illegal and void when the matter comes before the high court on Friday. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. But it was laid down what the spending limits were for each campaign and where, legally, that money could be raised from. But the Leave campaign over spent by £675,000 and raised £8,000,000 from illegal sources. That's why the the referendum is likely to be declared illegal and void when the matter comes before the high court on Friday. " If it is to be the case that the vote was declared null and void then surely any honest person would abide by the judgement taken by our judiciary.. taking back control etc.. or would there be an appeal to the ECJ by whomever.. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Which Leave campaign? If you're referring to Leave.EU then that wasn't the official leave campaign. " It doesn't matter. The court only has to decide whether the illegal money may have had an influence on the result. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. But it was laid down what the spending limits were for each campaign and where, legally, that money could be raised from. But the Leave campaign over spent by £675,000 and raised £8,000,000 from illegal sources. That's why the the referendum is likely to be declared illegal and void when the matter comes before the high court on Friday. If it is to be the case that the vote was declared null and void then surely any honest person would abide by the judgement taken by our judiciary.. taking back control etc.. or would there be an appeal to the ECJ by whomever.. " It’s such a delicious irony isn’t it? | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. But it was laid down what the spending limits were for each campaign and where, legally, that money could be raised from. But the Leave campaign over spent by £675,000 and raised £8,000,000 from illegal sources. That's why the the referendum is likely to be declared illegal and void when the matter comes before the high court on Friday. If it is to be the case that the vote was declared null and void then surely any honest person would abide by the judgement taken by our judiciary.. taking back control etc.. or would there be an appeal to the ECJ by whomever.. " More importantly, how are we going to "police " and prevent similar breaches in the future? Democracy has to work, but it also has to be legal! There has to be in place, the means, to stop fraud & deception (which is what it is) immediately, and have powers to remove or disqualify such practices! | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. " The difference is one (the Government's leaflet explaining the Government's position) was legal and two (Leaves overspending by £675,000 and raising £8,000,000 from outside the UK) were illegal. It's an important differences that you seem to be quite happy to consistently gloss over. | |||
| |||
" That's why the the referendum is likely to be declared illegal and void when the matter comes before the high court on Friday. " The gift that keeps on giving. Captain Manwarings across Britain will be reaching for their WW1 revolvers lol | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. " I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. But it was laid down what the spending limits were for each campaign and where, legally, that money could be raised from. But the Leave campaign over spent by £675,000 and raised £8,000,000 from illegal sources. That's why the the referendum is likely to be declared illegal and void when the matter comes before the high court on Friday. If it is to be the case that the vote was declared null and void then surely any honest person would abide by the judgement taken by our judiciary.. taking back control etc.. or would there be an appeal to the ECJ by whomever.. More importantly, how are we going to "police " and prevent similar breaches in the future? Democracy has to work, but it also has to be legal! There has to be in place, the means, to stop fraud & deception (which is what it is) immediately, and have powers to remove or disqualify such practices! " true as has been said on here mostly by those of us who voted to remain and denied or ignored and deflected by some on the leave side the fundamental issue is that if any of us accept that its ok to break the law to achieve what we think right the democracy and society in general suffers and that may effect all of us.. the only way is that the law of the land applies to those found after due process to have broken the law, a strong deterrent is needed.. | |||
 | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please" Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false?" Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. The difference is one (the Government's leaflet explaining the Government's position) was legal and two (Leaves overspending by £675,000 and raising £8,000,000 from outside the UK) were illegal. It's an important differences that you seem to be quite happy to consistently gloss over. " The £8 Million that was allegedly (remember that thing about innocent until proven guilty) raised from outside the UK was on the Leave.EU campaign wasn't it. Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign (the electoral commission designated Vote Leave as the one and only official leave campaign) and so you can't null and void the result on the basis of anything an unofficial campaign allegedly did. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. The difference is one (the Government's leaflet explaining the Government's position) was legal and two (Leaves overspending by £675,000 and raising £8,000,000 from outside the UK) were illegal. It's an important differences that you seem to be quite happy to consistently gloss over. The £8 Million that was allegedly (remember that thing about innocent until proven guilty) raised from outside the UK was on the Leave.EU campaign wasn't it. Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign (the electoral commission designated Vote Leave as the one and only official leave campaign) and so you can't null and void the result on the basis of anything an unofficial campaign allegedly did. " Oh well that’s alright then isn’t it....no chance of that undermining democracy because it was after all unofficial and therefore entirely justified and legal? | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please" That's probably because it couldn't say anything positive about Leaving and still stick to being facted based and truthful. | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, " That's simply because there is nothing positive to say about leaving. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. The difference is one (the Government's leaflet explaining the Government's position) was legal and two (Leaves overspending by £675,000 and raising £8,000,000 from outside the UK) were illegal. It's an important differences that you seem to be quite happy to consistently gloss over. The £8 Million that was allegedly (remember that thing about innocent until proven guilty) raised from outside the UK was on the Leave.EU campaign wasn't it. Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign (the electoral commission designated Vote Leave as the one and only official leave campaign) and so you can't null and void the result on the basis of anything an unofficial campaign allegedly did. " It doesn't matter who spent the money or whether it was spent as part of the official campaign or some other organisations or individuals. It only matters if it can be shown that the money is likely to have affected the vote enough to effect the result. It's estimated that the illegal £675,000 alone produced Facebook adverts that reached over 10,000,000 people in the last week. It only needed 650,000 votes to have been switched from Remain to Leave for that to have effected the result. It's really not looking good for the non existent BREXIT mandate. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. The difference is one (the Government's leaflet explaining the Government's position) was legal and two (Leaves overspending by £675,000 and raising £8,000,000 from outside the UK) were illegal. It's an important differences that you seem to be quite happy to consistently gloss over. The £8 Million that was allegedly (remember that thing about innocent until proven guilty) raised from outside the UK was on the Leave.EU campaign wasn't it. Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign (the electoral commission designated Vote Leave as the one and only official leave campaign) and so you can't null and void the result on the basis of anything an unofficial campaign allegedly did. Oh well that’s alright then isn’t it....no chance of that undermining democracy because it was after all unofficial and therefore entirely justified and legal?" Except that it was still illegal even if the official campaign new nothing about it, which I doubt. | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, " What was your question? And why am I having to answer your question about something else, that you asked someone else, several posts after I asked you something? I think it’s already been answered though - there’s actually very little positive about remaining. It’s not as though they could say ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be positive’ to balance out ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be negative’. Maybe you could suggest some of the benefits they could have mentioned for balance? | |||
 The complexity of just the UK state operations are phenomenal, without 27 other countries having levels of integration with it, established over many decades.
Parliamentary sovereignty is being highlighted in action and it's right that this will direct the country towards an appropriate strategy, in the absence of any from the conservative government. Cancelling Article 50, to ensure that any future UK exit from the EU would have sufficient time to allow negotiation of an appropriate settlement and exit, is a glaringly obvious tactic, even if it would upset some, who would prefer a much more extremist position (a minority within the conservative party would like this - but they are very few in number and couldn't muster 48 letters to get a vote against Theresa May as PM).
Taking just any old option to leave is inappropriate. The priority must be the economic and wider well-being of the country and its citizens. | |||
"Surely no-one ever thought that leaving the EU would be just as simple as letting them know the UK was going and that was it The complexity of just the UK state operations are phenomenal, without 27 other countries having levels of integration with it, established over many decades.
Parliamentary sovereignty is being highlighted in action and it's right that this will direct the country towards an appropriate strategy, in the absence of any from the conservative government. Cancelling Article 50, to ensure that any future UK exit from the EU would have sufficient time to allow negotiation of an appropriate settlement and exit, is a glaringly obvious tactic, even if it would upset some, who would prefer a much more extremist position (a minority within the conservative party would like this - but they are very few in number and couldn't muster 48 letters to get a vote against Theresa May as PM).
Taking just any old option to leave is inappropriate. The priority must be the economic and wider well-being of the country and its citizens. "I bet a good 1m (maybe more) thought exactly that. The number of people interviewed recently on the tv who actually said that is what they thought! | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, What was your question? And why am I having to answer your question about something else, that you asked someone else, several posts after I asked you something? I think it’s already been answered though - there’s actually very little positive about remaining. It’s not as though they could say ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be positive’ to balance out ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be negative’. Maybe you could suggest some of the benefits they could have mentioned for balance?" So you ask what was my question when it was above yours and then you just repeat someone elses excuse again show me the balancing arguments in the gov leaflet | |||
"Surely no-one ever thought that leaving the EU would be just as simple as letting them know the UK was going and that was it The complexity of just the UK state operations are phenomenal, without 27 other countries having levels of integration with it, established over many decades.
Parliamentary sovereignty is being highlighted in action and it's right that this will direct the country towards an appropriate strategy, in the absence of any from the conservative government. Cancelling Article 50, to ensure that any future UK exit from the EU would have sufficient time to allow negotiation of an appropriate settlement and exit, is a glaringly obvious tactic, even if it would upset some, who would prefer a much more extremist position (a minority within the conservative party would like this - but they are very few in number and couldn't muster 48 letters to get a vote against Theresa May as PM).
Taking just any old option to leave is inappropriate. The priority must be the economic and wider well-being of the country and its citizens. "So why would the eu agree to anything different from what has been agreed ? | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, What was your question? And why am I having to answer your question about something else, that you asked someone else, several posts after I asked you something? I think it’s already been answered though - there’s actually very little positive about remaining. It’s not as though they could say ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be positive’ to balance out ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be negative’. Maybe you could suggest some of the benefits they could have mentioned for balance? So you ask what was my question when it was above yours and then you just repeat someone elses excuse again show me the balancing arguments in the gov leaflet" Well, they was a question you asked someone else after I’d already asked you. You can’t dismiss a perfectly legitimate answer as an excuse just because you don’t like it. Well, you can, but it’s not very constructive. It seems clear you are unable or unwilling to say which were the worst bits of untrue propaganda. Or give examples of benefits that could have been mentioned for balance, which speaks volumes. | |||
"Surely no-one ever thought that leaving the EU would be just as simple as letting them know the UK was going and that was it The complexity of just the UK state operations are phenomenal, without 27 other countries having levels of integration with it, established over many decades.
Parliamentary sovereignty is being highlighted in action and it's right that this will direct the country towards an appropriate strategy, in the absence of any from the conservative government. Cancelling Article 50, to ensure that any future UK exit from the EU would have sufficient time to allow negotiation of an appropriate settlement and exit, is a glaringly obvious tactic, even if it would upset some, who would prefer a much more extremist position (a minority within the conservative party would like this - but they are very few in number and couldn't muster 48 letters to get a vote against Theresa May as PM).
Taking just any old option to leave is inappropriate. The priority must be the economic and wider well-being of the country and its citizens.
So why would the eu agree to anything different from what has been agreed ? "It won't. From the day the BREXIT referendum was conceived in Cameron's mind to today and beyond, May's deal, or something very like it, was the only deal offer. Leave means leave; no ifs no buts. May's deal is leaving the EU and is what Leave looks like. Why aren't you getting behind her to make BREXIT work? You won! Get over it. | |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, What was your question? And why am I having to answer your question about something else, that you asked someone else, several posts after I asked you something? I think it’s already been answered though - there’s actually very little positive about remaining. It’s not as though they could say ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be positive’ to balance out ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be negative’. Maybe you could suggest some of the benefits they could have mentioned for balance? So you ask what was my question when it was above yours and then you just repeat someone elses excuse again show me the balancing arguments in the gov leaflet Well, they was a question you asked someone else after I’d already asked you. You can’t dismiss a perfectly legitimate answer as an excuse just because you don’t like it. Well, you can, but it’s not very constructive. It seems clear you are unable or unwilling to say which were the worst bits of untrue propaganda. Or give examples of benefits that could have been mentioned for balance, which speaks volumes." No one has answered my question and you know it, either you are having a laugh or just enjoy trying to wind people up, sorry it wont work | |||
"Surely no-one ever thought that leaving the EU would be just as simple as letting them know the UK was going and that was it The complexity of just the UK state operations are phenomenal, without 27 other countries having levels of integration with it, established over many decades.
Parliamentary sovereignty is being highlighted in action and it's right that this will direct the country towards an appropriate strategy, in the absence of any from the conservative government. Cancelling Article 50, to ensure that any future UK exit from the EU would have sufficient time to allow negotiation of an appropriate settlement and exit, is a glaringly obvious tactic, even if it would upset some, who would prefer a much more extremist position (a minority within the conservative party would like this - but they are very few in number and couldn't muster 48 letters to get a vote against Theresa May as PM).
Taking just any old option to leave is inappropriate. The priority must be the economic and wider well-being of the country and its citizens.
So why would the eu agree to anything different from what has been agreed ?
It won't. From the day the BREXIT referendum was conceived in Cameron's mind to today and beyond, May's deal, or something very like it, was the only deal offer.
Leave means leave; no ifs no buts. May's deal is leaving the EU and is what Leave looks like. Why aren't you getting behind her to make BREXIT work?
You won! Get over it.
"Its the losers who need to get over it | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues." There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. | |||
"I think that for most parliamentarians the concept of leaving the EU was never thought through at the time of the referendum and they have been jumping through hoops ever since then trying to steer the monolithic amount of conventions and controls that have been built up over the last 40 odd years in a direction that pleased everyone and didn’t fuck our economy over. It’s a mammoth task and expecting it to be done without any preparation was hubris of the worst kind. Cameron should be held responsible for this shit storm as it is wholly his by allowing a referendum on such ill considered terms in the first place. The reality of all of this is that it would take a large government dept with a huge amount of funding and plenty of time (say six years?) to pull all the threads together and find a real exit plan. Unfortunately Cameron and his chum Osborne were in the throes of an austerity drive and didn’t think it would be necessary. Well here we are two and a bit years and god knows how many millions of pounds later and we are still trying to decide if our arse is our elbow? What a shower of shite they all are playing party politics instead of realising why they get paid ie to govern! "But weren't we told by the remain campaign that it was just leave campaign lies about how deeply entrenched EU rules, regulations, etc were in the UK? Now we're being told that it's "too difficult" to unravel... | |||
| |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway." That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... | |||
"I think that for most parliamentarians the concept of leaving the EU was never thought through at the time of the referendum and they have been jumping through hoops ever since then trying to steer the monolithic amount of conventions and controls that have been built up over the last 40 odd years in a direction that pleased everyone and didn’t fuck our economy over. It’s a mammoth task and expecting it to be done without any preparation was hubris of the worst kind. Cameron should be held responsible for this shit storm as it is wholly his by allowing a referendum on such ill considered terms in the first place. The reality of all of this is that it would take a large government dept with a huge amount of funding and plenty of time (say six years?) to pull all the threads together and find a real exit plan. Unfortunately Cameron and his chum Osborne were in the throes of an austerity drive and didn’t think it would be necessary. Well here we are two and a bit years and god knows how many millions of pounds later and we are still trying to decide if our arse is our elbow? What a shower of shite they all are playing party politics instead of realising why they get paid ie to govern!
But weren't we told by the remain campaign that it was just leave campaign lies about how deeply entrenched EU rules, regulations, etc were in the UK?
Now we're being told that it's "too difficult" to unravel..."Did the remain campaign actually say that? I thought they said the exact opposite, that there was a ton of legislation that would need to be transferred to the U.K., and would have major effects on a wide range of things, many of which weren’t even very obvious? | |||
| |||
"A Maybe so but our referendum wasn't laid out with that condition. True. But the point is that as the margin was so small, it makes it more likely that the result could have gone the other way had the leave campaign not broken the rules with regards their Spreading Utter Bullshit budget. Cue “offsets £9m propaganda” comment. It's true though isn't it, any overspending done by Leave is nothing in comparison to the £9 million quid of taxpayers money Cameron handed to remain for a pro-EU propaganda leaflet. What would you say were five or so of the worst bits of pro EU propaganda that are patently false? I had a thread in this. Not one answer in 50+ posts. It got side tracked into other “lies”. The leaflet was pro Eu as it explained why the government had decided it was pro Eu. However there were balancing statements. I have just reread it and didnt see any balancing statements can you point them out to me please Can you point out the worst few bits of propaganda you believe to be false? Try answering my question then I will answer yours, the fact that you havent shows you cant find any statements that had anything positive to say about leaving, What was your question? And why am I having to answer your question about something else, that you asked someone else, several posts after I asked you something? I think it’s already been answered though - there’s actually very little positive about remaining. It’s not as though they could say ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be positive’ to balance out ‘the net economic benefit is likely to be negative’. Maybe you could suggest some of the benefits they could have mentioned for balance? So you ask what was my question when it was above yours and then you just repeat someone elses excuse again show me the balancing arguments in the gov leaflet Well, they was a question you asked someone else after I’d already asked you. You can’t dismiss a perfectly legitimate answer as an excuse just because you don’t like it. Well, you can, but it’s not very constructive. It seems clear you are unable or unwilling to say which were the worst bits of untrue propaganda. Or give examples of benefits that could have been mentioned for balance, which speaks volumes. No one has answered my question and you know it, either you are having a laugh or just enjoy trying to wind people up, sorry it wont work " Your question has been answered. You just didn’t like the answer, so have been ignoring it, along with the questions about what benefits you think could have been mentioned, or what you felt actually was false propaganda. | |||
| |||
"Travelling abroad is easy and cheap thanks to being in the EU “Some argue little would change if we left the EU. ” The government judges it will take 10 years to unpick our relationship with the Eu “Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.” Immigration : “Some argue that leaving the EU would give us more freedom to limit immigration.” Given where we are these balancing statements feel reasonable. What should have been added? I will concede there was no mention of the cost of securing the benefits the government mentions and agree this should have been included. I don’t think the government have been blameless in any of this. And have condemned the chancellors recession statements also. But I struggle to see the full extent of the lies and propaganda that many out against the leaflet. At worst the balance is skewed. " It didn't say "The Government believe we should leave the EU with no deal on trade, standards or anything else". It also didn't say "the Government believe we should leave the EU without paying our dues". Finally it didn't "the Government believe we should leave the EU before finding out what our trading relationship with the rest of the world". Because it didn't say any of those things it must be biased. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though...." Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave | |||
| |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave" And how many won/lost having been found guilty of breaking the rules of the above referendums? | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave" 
On the 60% majority issue, the Scottish independence referendum result was 55% for Scotland to remain in the UK and 45% for Scotland to leave the UK. I don't recall these rabid remoaners who now say a referendum should be at least 60% complaining that the Scottish referendum result needed to be at least 60%.
Similarly the referendum on devolution for Wales was won on a tiny majority 50.3% in favour of Welsh devolution and 49.7% against Welsh devolution. The result was implemented without question and we now have a devolved Welsh assembly. | |||
| |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave
On the 60% majority issue, the Scottish independence referendum result was 55% for Scotland to remain in the UK and 45% for Scotland to leave the UK. I don't recall these rabid remoaners who now say a referendum should be at least 60% complaining that the Scottish referendum result needed to be at least 60%.
Similarly the referendum on devolution for Wales was won on a tiny majority 50.3% in favour of Welsh devolution and 49.7% against Welsh devolution. The result was implemented without question and we now have a devolved Welsh assembly. "What is a “remoaner”? | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave
On the 60% majority issue, the Scottish independence referendum result was 55% for Scotland to remain in the UK and 45% for Scotland to leave the UK. I don't recall these rabid remoaners who now say a referendum should be at least 60% complaining that the Scottish referendum result needed to be at least 60%.
Similarly the referendum on devolution for Wales was won on a tiny majority 50.3% in favour of Welsh devolution and 49.7% against Welsh devolution. The result was implemented without question and we now have a devolved Welsh assembly.
What is a “remoaner”? "Defined as "someone who took part in a democratic process but won't accept the result of said democratic process"  | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave
On the 60% majority issue, the Scottish independence referendum result was 55% for Scotland to remain in the UK and 45% for Scotland to leave the UK. I don't recall these rabid remoaners who now say a referendum should be at least 60% complaining that the Scottish referendum result needed to be at least 60%.
Similarly the referendum on devolution for Wales was won on a tiny majority 50.3% in favour of Welsh devolution and 49.7% against Welsh devolution. The result was implemented without question and we now have a devolved Welsh assembly.
What is a “remoaner”?
Defined as "someone who took part in a democratic process but won't accept the result of said democratic process" "Does a democratic process include a GE? After all may was voted to deliver brexit. She has. Yet some are threatening to undermine her. | |||
" Does a democratic process include a GE? After all may was voted to deliver brexit. She has. Yet some are threatening to undermine her. " Indeed she has. The problem, I think, is that a large number of people were led to believe that Brexit would be better than staying in the EU. They still want to believe that, so find it hard to accept an outcome that appears inferior. The reality is that no variation of Brexit delivers the benefits of what we had. The choice now is between the least worst options to replace it. | |||
" Does a democratic process include a GE? After all may was voted to deliver brexit. She has. Yet some are threatening to undermine her. Indeed she has. The problem, I think, is that a large number of people were led to believe that Brexit would be better than staying in the EU. They still want to believe that, so find it hard to accept an outcome that appears inferior. The reality is that no variation of Brexit delivers the benefits of what we had. The choice now is between the least worst options to replace it. " The great negotiator David Davis aka Thick as Mince is saying in the event we crash out the £ is going to fall a further 10-15 points. Not a bad thing we will get over it - well he's on £75,000 so it won't hurt him will it? | |||
| |||
"I have just read an article regarding the UK having a Norway plus arrangement with the EU. It's just been rejected by Norway - so is it dead in the water?" I've just read the same article, not officially rejected but pretty much said the UK would fuck up their EFTA group as we're basically so fucking awkward. | |||
"I have just read an article regarding the UK having a Norway plus arrangement with the EU. It's just been rejected by Norway - so is it dead in the water? I've just read the same article, not officially rejected but pretty much said the UK would fuck up their EFTA group as we're basically so fucking awkward." It made me laugh when I read it. TBH, until we can find a solution to the Irish border problem we can't really leave the Customs Union or the Single Market, whether you call that a backstop or Labour's terms 'a new customs union with a single market'. We can choose to remain in those and technically still leave the EU (May's deal) but what's the point of giving up our seat, vote and veto at the decision making table but still being subject to most or all of the rules. With the exception of the a few die hard BREXITERS most people now realise this. | |||
| |||
"Well Norway says NO! That's that door closed. So our choices 'no deal':- Parliament against, option closed May's Deal:- Parliament against, option closed EEA+:- Norway says No, option closed. Renegotiate new deal:- EU says no, option closed. People's vote:- We can have Remain as one choice but which of the already closed options do we have as the other? Still a possible option but rapidly closings. No BREXIT:- Suffer the anger of a few hard line BREXITERS (we've lived with that for 40 years). Nothing stopping us. " It takes an amazing amount of mental gymnastics to suggest the majority 52%, some 17.4 million people who voted Leave and was the biggest vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK, is equivalent to suffering the anger of a few hard line Brexiters. The reality is you risk suffering the anger of the 52%, 17.4 million people who voted Leave in the biggest democratic vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK. | |||
"Well Norway says NO! That's that door closed. So our choices 'no deal':- Parliament against, option closed May's Deal:- Parliament against, option closed EEA+:- Norway says No, option closed. Renegotiate new deal:- EU says no, option closed. People's vote:- We can have Remain as one choice but which of the already closed options do we have as the other? Still a possible option but rapidly closings. No BREXIT:- Suffer the anger of a few hard line BREXITERS (we've lived with that for 40 years). Nothing stopping us. It takes an amazing amount of mental gymnastics to suggest the majority 52%, some 17.4 million people who voted Leave and was the biggest vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK, is equivalent to suffering the anger of a few hard line Brexiters. The reality is you risk suffering the anger of the 52%, 17.4 million people who voted Leave in the biggest democratic vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK. " But what Leave did they vote for? It could have been anything from EEA+, through May's deal, all the way to 'no deal'. The 52% have their chance to Leave the EU with May's deal but they're about to say No. What we do know is that 16+ million voted to Remain and all those new what they where voting for. As you have said many times recently the referendum only said Leave or Remain. You have your Leave option. It's going to Parliament on Tuesday. And if you seriously think you'll get 17+ million people rioting on the streets because they're not getting the sort of hard, destructive BREXIT you want but they never voted for you're seriously misleading yourself. | |||
"Well Norway says NO! That's that door closed. So our choices 'no deal':- Parliament against, option closed May's Deal:- Parliament against, option closed EEA+:- Norway says No, option closed. Renegotiate new deal:- EU says no, option closed. People's vote:- We can have Remain as one choice but which of the already closed options do we have as the other? Still a possible option but rapidly closings. No BREXIT:- Suffer the anger of a few hard line BREXITERS (we've lived with that for 40 years). Nothing stopping us. It takes an amazing amount of mental gymnastics to suggest the majority 52%, some 17.4 million people who voted Leave and was the biggest vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK, is equivalent to suffering the anger of a few hard line Brexiters. The reality is you risk suffering the anger of the 52%, 17.4 million people who voted Leave in the biggest democratic vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK. But what Leave did they vote for? It could have been anything from EEA+, through May's deal, all the way to 'no deal'. The 52% have their chance to Leave the EU with May's deal but they're about to say No. What we do know is that 16+ million voted to Remain and all those new what they where voting for. As you have said many times recently the referendum only said Leave or Remain. You have your Leave option. It's going to Parliament on Tuesday. And if you seriously think you'll get 17+ million people rioting on the streets because they're not getting the sort of hard, destructive BREXIT you want but they never voted for you're seriously misleading yourself. " People who voted remain didn't know what they were voting for either. Some remainers voted to stay in the EU as it is now, some remainers voted to stay in the EU with the hope it will become more integrated, more federalist in future, some remainers voted to remain in a reformed EU which they think they can change so we have a more loose relationship with the EU. If you think remainers knew what they voted for you are seriously misleading yourself. | |||
| |||
"Well Norway says NO! That's that door closed. So our choices 'no deal':- Parliament against, option closed May's Deal:- Parliament against, option closed EEA+:- Norway says No, option closed. Renegotiate new deal:- EU says no, option closed. People's vote:- We can have Remain as one choice but which of the already closed options do we have as the other? Still a possible option but rapidly closings. No BREXIT:- Suffer the anger of a few hard line BREXITERS (we've lived with that for 40 years). Nothing stopping us. It takes an amazing amount of mental gymnastics to suggest the majority 52%, some 17.4 million people who voted Leave and was the biggest vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK, is equivalent to suffering the anger of a few hard line Brexiters. The reality is you risk suffering the anger of the 52%, 17.4 million people who voted Leave in the biggest democratic vote for anything ever in the entire history of the UK. But what Leave did they vote for? It could have been anything from EEA+, through May's deal, all the way to 'no deal'. The 52% have their chance to Leave the EU with May's deal but they're about to say No. What we do know is that 16+ million voted to Remain and all those new what they where voting for. As you have said many times recently the referendum only said Leave or Remain. You have your Leave option. It's going to Parliament on Tuesday. And if you seriously think you'll get 17+ million people rioting on the streets because they're not getting the sort of hard, destructive BREXIT you want but they never voted for you're seriously misleading yourself. People who voted remain didn't know what they were voting for either. Some remainers voted to stay in the EU as it is now, some remainers voted to stay in the EU with the hope it will become more integrated, more federalist in future, some remainers voted to remain in a reformed EU which they think they can change so we have a more loose relationship with the EU. If you think remainers knew what they voted for you are seriously misleading yourself. " But they did know what they were voting for. They were voting to Remain in the EU and to keep our seat votes and veto in the decision making process of the EU. There was no question of Remaining in the EU but not in the Customs Union or Single Market. Some may agree with some decisions such as environmental policy or state subsidies to industry, just as some people don't like policies here from time to time on welfare, housing and transport. All Remain voters knew that we were voting to continue with a free trade area with a common set of external tariffs which would continue to increas economic efficiency and continue to establish closer political and cultural ties between the member countries. That substantially the same duties and other regulations of commerce would continue to be applied by each of the member states on the trade of other territories not members; (the Customs Union). We further knew when we voted Remain that we were voting to continue to be part of a trading bloc in which trade barriers would continued to be removed for goods by a set of common policies on product regulations. We also knew that we were voting to continue with the freedom of movement of the factors of production (capital and labour) and ever increasing freedoms of movement for enterprise and services (the Single Market). The EU's decision making process, the EU's Customs Union, which is a Free Trade Area and not to be confused with a customs union, and the EU's Single Market, which is a Trading Block, are the fundamentals of the EU and we knew we were voting to Remain in them all. The Political process, the Customs Union and the Single Market, Remain voters voted to Remain in them all. With Leave some voted to Leave all three. Some voted to leave the political process but remain in the Customs Union and Single Market. Some voted to leave the political process and the Single Market but remain in the Customs Union. Some voted to leave the political process and the Single Market but remain in the Customs Union. Even now, after 2.5 years, we still haven't found a leave that all Leave voters are happy to leave on. In fact, despite constantly chanting "Leave means leave, no ifs, no buts" they can't even agree if some forms of leaving that some Leave voters voted for is actually leaving. On the other hand all 16+ million Remain voters knew exactly what sort of Remain they wanted (what we have now) and there is no argument amongst Remain voters about what remain means or if some sorts of Remain are more remain than others. | |||
| |||
"It’s scarcely believable that, 16 weeks before the UK membership terminates, politicians are dreaming up alternative fixes. There are only two options in the control of the UK to implement - the May proposal and exit with no agreement. Only one of these options maintains the Belfast Agreement. Anything else would need to be negotiated and subject to the agreement of third parties. Time to bite the bullet." Yes no time for a 3rd option. Time for MP'S to take responsibility - that's what they are paid to do! I would prefer May's deal, but recognise leave would not accept it - even though we have left the EU and delivered on the referendum! However, part of me wants hard brexit to see who was right. | |||
"It’s scarcely believable that, 16 weeks before the UK membership terminates, politicians are dreaming up alternative fixes. There are only two options in the control of the UK to implement - the May proposal and exit with no agreement. Only one of these options maintains the Belfast Agreement. Anything else would need to be negotiated and subject to the agreement of third parties. Time to bite the bullet. Yes no time for a 3rd option. Time for MP'S to take responsibility - that's what they are paid to do! I would prefer May's deal, but recognise leave would not accept it - even though we have left the EU and delivered on the referendum! However, part of me wants hard brexit to see who was right." May's deal is BREXIT, leavers won, May is trying to deliver BREXIT, leavers need to hold MP's to account if they vote the deal down. | |||
"Any deal is a horrendous deal. A No Deal situation is a disaster. We have the only government in our history who are actively setting out to make the nation poorer - they admit that. The Brexit side can hardly bang on about democracy when they've had to be dragged screaming to the courts to have the legal situation pointed out i.e. that parliament would have to vote on any deal. Where is their love of our sovereign parliament there? Following an illegal referendum this has to go back to a people's vote, so MPs have the political cover to act. If we happen to be dumb enough to go for it again, it will nevertheless get through parliament. How was the referendum illegal? It was passed by an act of Parliament and a majority of Parliament voted for it and said they would let the people decide and respect the decision that was made. There seems to be a suggestion that the leave campaign broke the rules regarding how much they spent on campaign advertising. Given that the vote was already a narrow margin in favour of leaving, the much of that was based on, at best misinformation, at worst outright lies.... Then it reasonably follows that the result may have gone the other way had the leave campaign not spent as much as they did peddling their bullshit. It might be worth noting that it’s common in other countries to require a 60% majority on referendums, especially for such important issues. There are numerous examples of referendums throughout the EU that have not required a 60% vote. There is even at least one where the vote has been over 60% against the EU, but the national government has done what the EU wanted anyway. That’s why I said it was common, not that it happened all the time. And specifically for really big important things. I’m not sure there have been many referendums in Europe recently on anything as big as actually leaving the EU. I’ll stand corrected though.... Just some of the referendums without a 60% majority vote (apart from one), Joining the EU - Sweden, 52% Finland 56% Malta 53% Maastricht Treaty..France 53% in favour Denmark - rejected on first referendum, accepted on a second referendum with 57% The Lisbon Treaty Ireland, 54% against, had another vote and accepted Greek Bailout, 61% against, Greek government went ahead with EU austerity plans anyway And finally, Remain or leave the EC - Greenland 53% to leave
On the 60% majority issue, the Scottish independence referendum result was 55% for Scotland to remain in the UK and 45% for Scotland to leave the UK. I don't recall these rabid remoaners who now say a referendum should be at least 60% complaining that the Scottish referendum result needed to be at least 60%.
Similarly the referendum on devolution for Wales was won on a tiny majority 50.3% in favour of Welsh devolution and 49.7% against Welsh devolution. The result was implemented without question and we now have a devolved Welsh assembly. "Both referenda were pre EU referendum..hence 'remoaners' as you call them not complaining about them as they didn't exist. | |||
"It’s scarcely believable that, 16 weeks before the UK membership terminates, politicians are dreaming up alternative fixes. There are only two options in the control of the UK to implement - the May proposal and exit with no agreement. Only one of these options maintains the Belfast Agreement. Anything else would need to be negotiated and subject to the agreement of third parties. Time to bite the bullet. Yes no time for a 3rd option. Time for MP'S to take responsibility - that's what they are paid to do! I would prefer May's deal, but recognise leave would not accept it - even though we have left the EU and delivered on the referendum! However, part of me wants hard brexit to see who was right. May's deal is BREXIT, leavers won, May is trying to deliver BREXIT, leavers need to hold MP's to account if they vote the deal down. " MP's are supposed to act in the best interest of the country - with all the squabbling going on based on tribalism not much chance of that! | |||
"It’s scarcely believable that, 16 weeks before the UK membership terminates, politicians are dreaming up alternative fixes. There are only two options in the control of the UK to implement - the May proposal and exit with no agreement. Only one of these options maintains the Belfast Agreement. Anything else would need to be negotiated and subject to the agreement of third parties. Time to bite the bullet. Yes no time for a 3rd option. Time for MP'S to take responsibility - that's what they are paid to do! I would prefer May's deal, but recognise leave would not accept it - even though we have left the EU and delivered on the referendum! However, part of me wants hard brexit to see who was right. May's deal is BREXIT, leavers won, May is trying to deliver BREXIT, leavers need to hold MP's to account if they vote the deal down. MP's are supposed to act in the best interest of the country - with all the squabbling going on based on tribalism not much chance of that!" Very true | |||
"It’s scarcely believable that, 16 weeks before the UK membership terminates, politicians are dreaming up alternative fixes. There are only two options in the control of the UK to implement - the May proposal and exit with no agreement. Only one of these options maintains the Belfast Agreement. Anything else would need to be negotiated and subject to the agreement of third parties. Time to bite the bullet. Yes no time for a 3rd option. Time for MP'S to take responsibility - that's what they are paid to do! I would prefer May's deal, but recognise leave would not accept it - even though we have left the EU and delivered on the referendum! However, part of me wants hard brexit to see who was right. May's deal is BREXIT, leavers won, May is trying to deliver BREXIT, leavers need to hold MP's to account if they vote the deal down. MP's are supposed to act in the best interest of the country - with all the squabbling going on based on tribalism not much chance of that!" I don't think it's just tribal squabbling. I think Parliament, like the country, is split. One side all agree that remaining in the EU is best for Britain whilst the other side can't agree on anything other than that remaining in the EU as we are now is not. Parliament is meant to reflect the will of the people and on this it is reflecting the will of the people, which is undecided. | |||
| |||
| |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot..." I can only say that is a post reflecting pure ignorance of reality | |||
"This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone put forward this as a solution. I still can’t work out what is so bad about the EU you’d willingly “give up” something which has had so much blood spilled in the past... and possibly against the people of N Ireland’s will. " Such is the Brexit ideology when you believe you can “trade” 1.5 million people. The mindset of the Empire and the treatment of people as property and land as fiefdoms. | |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot... I can only say that is a post reflecting pure ignorance of reality " No ignorance here, and at least I explained my position. I’m guessing you are a desperate remoaner who is still hoping for a no BREXIT. | |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot... I can only say that is a post reflecting pure ignorance of reality No ignorance here, and at least I explained my position. I’m guessing you are a desperate remoaner who is still hoping for a no BREXIT." How dare you call a UKIP canvasser who advocates hanging Gina Miller and shooting French fishing vessels ignorant. Not a chance! | |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot... I can only say that is a post reflecting pure ignorance of reality No ignorance here, and at least I explained my position. I’m guessing you are a desperate remoaner who is still hoping for a no BREXIT. How dare you call a UKIP canvasser who advocates hanging Gina Miller and shooting French fishing vessels ignorant. Not a chance!" I haven’t canvassed for a long long time. The rest I still agree with. | |||
| |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot..." so we owe it to the future generations to take away the oppotunities that they have to better themselves to take advantages away that we had that they wont now get? what a strange thing to say.... that is isolationism at its peak!!! the reason why may cant say with a straight face that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is that with all the information we now have it is patently not true, economically or otherwise! for example... i know you work in the cash and carry trade, with the report the government brought out yesterday that disruptions at uk ports in a hard no deal situation could be anywhere up to 6 months rather than the 6 weeks they originally said! if i were you, i'd be worried! think of it like this... why would they say this now with 3 months to go? don't you think this is to concentrate minds that it could be a shitshow?? | |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot..." Yeah things are not going the way you wanted or thought they should so your choice is to abandon those whose forefathers have stood by the country in time of need, shoulder to shoulder.. And this from someone who tries to give it the big un about what may happen, people on the streets, how they sorted out the lefties back in the day.. Pure piffle.. Weak friendship or lacking in any backbone, what is it to ditch the ones who have stood with you because its getting a bit hard..? | |||
| |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot... so we owe it to the future generations to take away the oppotunities that they have to better themselves to take advantages away that we had that they wont now get? what a strange thing to say.... that is isolationism at its peak!!! the reason why may cant say with a straight face that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is that with all the information we now have it is patently not true, economically or otherwise! for example... i know you work in the cash and carry trade, with the report the government brought out yesterday that disruptions at uk ports in a hard no deal situation could be anywhere up to 6 months rather than the 6 weeks they originally said! if i were you, i'd be worried! think of it like this... why would they say this now with 3 months to go? don't you think this is to concentrate minds that it could be a shitshow??" Why would they say it now with 3 months to go? Same reason George Osborne and David Cameron came out with increasingly ridiculous amounts of scaremongering the closer we got to the vote in 2016, an intensification of Project fear. History repeating itself. Trouble is half the Tory MP's (and the public) don't belive these apocalyptic pie in the sky scenarios put out by the Treasury and the likes of Mark Carney at the Bank of England. They were debunked in 2016 when their forecasts and predictions about a vote to leave never materialised and the worst case scenarios they've come out with now are already being debunked. Former chancellor of the exchequer Norman Lamont said on sky news these worse case scenarios of a drop of 8% in GDP make the assumption that ALL trade with the EU would completely cease to exist indefinitely, that is away with the fairies, pie in the sky thinking. Former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King also wrote an article in the press completely debunking these worse case scenarios as nonsense and said it saddened him to see the bank of England being drawn into Project fear. He said the Banks worst case scenario which showed the cost of leaving without a deal resulting in a drop of more than 10% of gross domestic product was unrealistic. He said that Carney's assumptions used in the models to conclude these worst case scenarios were not plausible. | |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot... so we owe it to the future generations to take away the oppotunities that they have to better themselves to take advantages away that we had that they wont now get? what a strange thing to say.... that is isolationism at its peak!!! the reason why may cant say with a straight face that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is that with all the information we now have it is patently not true, economically or otherwise! for example... i know you work in the cash and carry trade, with the report the government brought out yesterday that disruptions at uk ports in a hard no deal situation could be anywhere up to 6 months rather than the 6 weeks they originally said! if i were you, i'd be worried! think of it like this... why would they say this now with 3 months to go? don't you think this is to concentrate minds that it could be a shitshow??" The cash and carry trade is doing very well indeed, in fact making much more money with less staff than last year. It’s hard work, but time goes faster when you’re hard at it. Of course we do rely on a lot of imported goods, but comparably much less from the EU than from even the new world. I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. What I do fear is our nation being railroaded towards staying in the EU by our corrupt political elite. I don’t support any of our ‘wonderful’ politicians, not on either side of either house. None of them give a shit about Joe Public, and most do not really respect the result of our referendum. | |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. " This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. | |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. " This must be the height of Irony. You can't see that the EU is the sinking ship that you are standing on, and you've been given a seat in a lifeboat through Brexit. | |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. "
And when reality bites it will be denial or blame it on the EU or those who voted to remain..
| |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. This must be the height of Irony. You can't see that the EU is the sinking ship that you are standing on, and you've been given a seat in a lifeboat through Brexit. " Exactly, remoaners are so full of shit that they should have needle gauges for eyes, with the needles firmly fixed on full of shit. I really can’t wait to see the EU house of cards come tumbling down. We should be getting ou at the right time, if we can trust our govt! | |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. This must be the height of Irony. You can't see that the EU is the sinking ship that you are standing on, and you've been given a seat in a lifeboat through Brexit. Exactly, remoaners are so full of shit that they should have needle gauges for eyes, with the needles firmly fixed on full of shit. I really can’t wait to see the EU house of cards come tumbling down. We should be getting ou at the right time, if we can trust our govt! "What is a “remoaner”? | |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. This must be the height of Irony. You can't see that the EU is the sinking ship that you are standing on, and you've been given a seat in a lifeboat through Brexit. Exactly, remoaners are so full of shit that they should have needle gauges for eyes, with the needles firmly fixed on full of shit. I really can’t wait to see the EU house of cards come tumbling down. We should be getting ou at the right time, if we can trust our govt!
What is a “remoaner”? "Someone who voted remain and is still forever moaning about the FACT that their side lost the referendum... | |||
"May should have stuck to her statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” But she dropped that at the first opportunity and look where we are now! All I can see is a govt that promised to “deliver on BREXIT,” now telling us that any deal is better than none and that it is all down to Northern Ireland. I never thought I would ever think this, let alone post it on a message board. But I think we should let Eire have the North and a United Ireland. Then we should tell the EU we are leaving without a deal, and begin our negotiations with the rest of the world. We owe it to future generations. A hard reset, not a little reboot... I can only say that is a post reflecting pure ignorance of reality No ignorance here, and at least I explained my position. I’m guessing you are a desperate remoaner who is still hoping for a no BREXIT. How dare you call a UKIP canvasser who advocates hanging Gina Miller and shooting French fishing vessels ignorant. Not a chance!" So funny whilst being so factually correct | |||
" Exactly, remoaners are so full of shit that they should have needle gauges for eyes, with the needles firmly fixed on full of shit. I really can’t wait to see the EU house of cards come tumbling down. We should be getting ou at the right time, if we can trust our govt! "Interesting.... Leavers were promising we'd get a better deal than we have now = Full of shit ? We hold all the cards for the negotiations = Full of shit The EU will be begging us for a deal = Full of shit BREXIT dividend = Full of shit BMW / Volkswagen etc will force the EU to do whatever we ask for = Full of shit Both sides lied but it's about time the most rabid leavers acknowledged the fact, can you ? | |||
" I am not at all worried about BREXIT, and there is nothing that anyone, let alone an ardent remainer, can say that will change this. Your prophesies of doom are totally wasted on me. This paragraph says it all really. Sometimes I wonder how bad will things have to get for leavers to realise they made the wrong choice. And this post says a lot, like a man on a sinking ship denying that the ship is sinking. This must be the height of Irony. You can't see that the EU is the sinking ship that you are standing on, and you've been given a seat in a lifeboat through Brexit. Exactly, remoaners are so full of shit that they should have needle gauges for eyes, with the needles firmly fixed on full of shit. I really can’t wait to see the EU house of cards come tumbling down. We should be getting ou at the right time, if we can trust our govt! "I’m fairness you’re the one who said that there’s nothing anyone can say that will change your mind. It’s your prerogative to ignore information. But then is just silly to accuse me of being full of shit, and as for the other poster who thinks it’s the ultimate irony, that’s just silly. Leavers have every right to hold any beliefs you want, but remainers have our beliefs based on facts and evidence not pie in the sky blind hope, it adherence to catchphrases and meaningless concepts. If there was some evidence to support some benefit for the uk being out of Europe I would absolutely consider it. But the fact is, there just isn’t any. The EU is far from perfect, but it’s not crumbling and all the credible evidence strongly suggests we will be much better off being in that out. Especially from economic, environment, human rights, workers rights, general freedoms, perspectives. | |||
"What a mess we are in, Brexit or now it seems our paliment elected ministers can overturn the referendum and instigate a deal similar to Norway or Iceland They are governed by legislation laid down by the EU, yet are not part of the EU? But because they aren’t member states have bossy in the new laws introduced!! They are still governed by constitutional rights of the EU allowing individuals from the EU free access to their country etc.. What the hell sort of deal is that?? This is getting ridiculous,we voted to leave, now parliament are going to overturns democratic vote for this !!! Sorry to harp on but feel you all should know whst is likely to happen" Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all members of the EFTA, there is no guarantee that the UJK will be allowed to join EFTA, and if anything, those three countries will resist the UK joining. The idea of a Norway+ deal post Brexit is wishful thinking on the part of brexiteers!! | |||
| |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules." Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it!" Most probably | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably" Oh yes we would - the EFTA states have only got to look at our union - dominated by England - they just need to ask the other 3 nations where it feels like - vassal states? | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably" We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that." Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply "Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously. So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better. | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better."Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us! Your just scare mongering!!! Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June! Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too! | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better.
Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us!
Your just scare mongering!!!
Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June!
Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too!"Well, once we leave the EU we will lose around 50 or so trade agreements we currently have, with the average time span of say 4 years from starting negotiations through to implementation which is conservative to say the least. Liam Fox has said his department doesn’t currently have the capacity to negotiate major free trade agreements. This means the Government may not be able to take on more than one set of negotiations at the same time. In addition, it will likely be busy negotiating the free trade agreement with the EU well into the 2020s before starting anything else. | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better.
Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us!
Your just scare mongering!!!
Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June!
Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too!
Well, once we leave the EU we will lose around 50 or so trade agreements we currently have, with the average time span of say 4 years from starting negotiations through to implementation which is conservative to say the least.
Liam Fox has said his department doesn’t currently have the capacity to negotiate major free trade agreements. This means the Government may not be able to take on more than one set of negotiations at the same time. In addition, it will likely be busy negotiating the free trade agreement with the EU well into the 2020s before starting anything else.
"Yes. When something sounds to good to be true, it usually is! #projectreality | |||
| |||
"FFS, they cannot even negotiate with themselves. They’ve been taken to the cleaners by Ireland (with the leverage of the EU). Moldova is blocking UK accession to the WTO schedule because of a slight to its trade ambassador. But hey chaps, the Dunkirk spirit will get us through and make Britain great again, eh? LMAO" The UK hasn’t been taken to the cleaners by anyone, Brexit was voted on by the UK population, so they only have themselves to blame for the mess they find themselves! The GFA is an international treaty, lodged with the UN between The UK and Ireland with the EU as guarantor, so the EU is protecting that agreement, which they are entitled to do, Another example of Brexixeers shifting the blame for the mess they have created!! | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better.
Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us!
Your just scare mongering!!!
Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June!
Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too!
Well, once we leave the EU we will lose around 50 or so trade agreements we currently have, with the average time span of say 4 years from starting negotiations through to implementation which is conservative to say the least.
Liam Fox has said his department doesn’t currently have the capacity to negotiate major free trade agreements. This means the Government may not be able to take on more than one set of negotiations at the same time. In addition, it will likely be busy negotiating the free trade agreement with the EU well into the 2020s before starting anything else.
"Wasn’t it Liam Fox who said that negotiating new trade agreements with the EU would be the easiest in history? | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better.
Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us!
Your just scare mongering!!!
Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June!
Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too!
Well, once we leave the EU we will lose around 50 or so trade agreements we currently have, with the average time span of say 4 years from starting negotiations through to implementation which is conservative to say the least.
Liam Fox has said his department doesn’t currently have the capacity to negotiate major free trade agreements. This means the Government may not be able to take on more than one set of negotiations at the same time. In addition, it will likely be busy negotiating the free trade agreement with the EU well into the 2020s before starting anything else.
Wasn’t it Liam Fox who said that negotiating new trade agreements with the EU would be the easiest in history?"Centaur will tell you that he said it "should" be the easiest in history. It's a VERY important distinction
It's also, obviously, the fault of the EU that it's not turning out to be easy. After all, we said that it would be easy. Sorry, "should" be easy | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better.
Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us!
Your just scare mongering!!!
Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June!
Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too!
Well, once we leave the EU we will lose around 50 or so trade agreements we currently have, with the average time span of say 4 years from starting negotiations through to implementation which is conservative to say the least.
Liam Fox has said his department doesn’t currently have the capacity to negotiate major free trade agreements. This means the Government may not be able to take on more than one set of negotiations at the same time. In addition, it will likely be busy negotiating the free trade agreement with the EU well into the 2020s before starting anything else.
Wasn’t it Liam Fox who said that negotiating new trade agreements with the EU would be the easiest in history?
Centaur will tell you that he said it "should" be the easiest in history.
It's a VERY important distinction
It's also, obviously, the fault of the EU that it's not turning out to be easy. After all, we said that it would be easy. Sorry, "should" be easy "Of course! | |||
"I honestly don't think we'd be granted EFTA membership anyway, the UK has a long history of not wanting to abide by trading bloc membership rules. Curent members are small nations and the UK would try to dominate it! Most probably We would also want to join the organisation as a "stop-gap" until we arrange something "better". Pretty arrogant. We should be told to get stuffed with an attitude like that. Don't worry I think they most certainly will if we apply
Thing is it will take decades & decades just to negotiate & reach the amount of FTA's with Countries that we have right now and then, only then will we have any chance on "improving' on what we had 20 to 30 years or more previously.
So after knocking ourselves back a few generations economically we might just get back to where we are now so it's going to be a long long time till we get anything better.
Don't be silly we will have trade deals within weeks! Countries are queuing up to do trade deals with us!
Your just scare mongering!!!
Ok joke over but some people believe that - some people thought we'd be out 24th June!
Given how thick some MP'S are - there are probably a few who thought that too!
Well, once we leave the EU we will lose around 50 or so trade agreements we currently have, with the average time span of say 4 years from starting negotiations through to implementation which is conservative to say the least.
Liam Fox has said his department doesn’t currently have the capacity to negotiate major free trade agreements. This means the Government may not be able to take on more than one set of negotiations at the same time. In addition, it will likely be busy negotiating the free trade agreement with the EU well into the 2020s before starting anything else.
Wasn’t it Liam Fox who said that negotiating new trade agreements with the EU would be the easiest in history?
Centaur will tell you that he said it "should" be the easiest in history.
It's a VERY important distinction
It's also, obviously, the fault of the EU that it's not turning out to be easy. After all, we said that it would be easy. Sorry, "should" be easy
Of course! "Also £350 million a weeks wasn't going t be spent on the NHS, it could be. It was also a gross figure that was never paid rather than a net figure that was. Anyway, the point is that it was not an actual lie. Actually  | |||
