FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Accept my deal or no brexit.
Accept my deal or no brexit.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"I am watching press review on sky news and it is not looking good for brexit as division is tearing up the torys and the country how will this play out? "Just perfectly  | |||
 | |||
"This whole referendum process began to try and hold the Tory party together. So we divide the country to unite the Conservatives and then they tear themselves apart anyway. We all win "...or we all lose | |||
"This whole referendum process began to try and hold the Tory party together. So we divide the country to unite the Conservatives and then they tear themselves apart anyway. We all win
...or we all lose"... or some of us win or some of us lose. | |||
"This whole referendum process began to try and hold the Tory party together. So we divide the country to unite the Conservatives and then they tear themselves apart anyway. We all win
...or we all lose
... or some of us win or some of us lose. "I think you've covered all the bases there. | |||
| |||
"I think there is the possibility that May's deal may still get through next week. If the ERG, which is estimated to be about 80 MPs, decide to back it then that's enough to turn her last defeat in to a narrow victory. I think it's quite possible that, rather than see BREXIT delayed (which they believe would actually be BREXIT shelved and then cancelled) they could vote for May's deal as, in their opinion, the least worse option. " Three votes to get the "right result" and let people change their minds, eh? But another referendum? Oh no, the die is cast, we cannot change our minds. Only MPs are allowed to do that, it seems. | |||
"This whole referendum process began to try and hold the Tory party together. So we divide the country to unite the Conservatives and then they tear themselves apart anyway. We all win "Seems labour are too 18 mps voting against the whip 5 front benchers resign,i wonder if corbyn dares to whip against the vote on wednesday? i doubt it very much. | |||
"I am watching press review on sky news and it is not looking good for brexit as division is tearing up the torys and the country how will this play out?
Just perfectly "lol yes, just few weeks left. | |||
| |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. " Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? " Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. " ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? " No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. " ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. " So now you are telling me there are no young leavers? you seem to be getting very angry about her presenting her deal again but it goes on all the time i see its possible next week that corbyn will present another no confidence vote.It is not the same as a referendum,how many do you remember in your lifetime? it is what happens in the commons. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. So now you are telling me there are no young leavers? you seem to be getting very angry about her presenting her deal again but it goes on all the time i see its possible next week that corbyn will present another no confidence vote.It is not the same as a referendum,how many do you remember in your lifetime? it is what happens in the commons." No I am not saying that at all. Where did you see that? I am saying that there are substantially more younger people who voted remain and more older people who voted to leave. From the BBC: "Just over 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds who voted in the referendum backed Remain, four major academic and commercial polls conducted shortly after the ballot agree, with just under 30% backing Leave. In contrast, only 40% of those aged 65 and over supported Remain, while 60% placed their cross against Leave." I'm not angry. Where did you see that? I don't really see why multiple votes on unchanged information makes sense but a vote with completely new information does not. I don't think that Corbyn's equally an ass. How many times in your lifetime has there been the biggest ever vote against a government proposal then rejected by the fourth biggest? This sort of behavior does not go on all the time in Parliament. It is quite particular. Do you think that there has been no new information since the referendum? I've seen two referendum votes in my lifetime, both, for some reason, only requiring simple majorities to make far ranging, fundamental change to society. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. " Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? " Why stop there? Why not for the constituents of the Tiggers in by elections? The Tiggers want a 2nd referendum but they don't want to give their constituents a 2nd vote in by elections. #Remaindoublestandards | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Why stop there? Why not for the constituents of the Tiggers in by elections? The Tiggers want a 2nd referendum but they don't want to give their constituents a 2nd vote in by elections. #Remaindoublestandards" Said it before, will say it again. Works both ways. #Leavedoublestandards | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit. "
Bless you for your metronomic predictability.
So you've been around for three referenda then?
Are you saying that a significantly higher proportion of the young did not vote for remain compared to the proportion of the old voting to leave? Perhaps you are just creating another distraction?
Enjoy the constructive ambiguity that a Fullfact lays out very clearly...or unclearly :
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
The Attorney General's advice verbatim:
"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement."
There is no Brexit dividend to spend as costs of Brexit will outweigh the benefits over the period in question. The promise is also only for £394million by the last week of 2024.
Any increased spending would come from increased taxation, increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere.
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/ | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Why stop there? Why not for the constituents of the Tiggers in by elections? The Tiggers want a 2nd referendum but they don't want to give their constituents a 2nd vote in by elections. #Remaindoublestandards" Excellent. I'm up for that. The government have already their second go. By-elections and referenda too then. I'm up for that. How about you? | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit.
Bless you for your metronomic predictability.
So you've been around for three referenda then?
Are you saying that a significantly higher proportion of the young did not vote for remain compared to the proportion of the old voting to leave? Perhaps you are just creating another distraction?
Enjoy the constructive ambiguity that a Fullfact lays out very clearly...or unclearly :
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
The Attorney General's advice verbatim:
"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement."
There is no Brexit dividend to spend as costs of Brexit will outweigh the benefits over the period in question. The promise is also only for £394million by the last week of 2024.
Any increased spending would come from increased taxation, increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere.
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/"Your first link to full fact is reference to the customs union which is a completely different thing to the single market. But even so Vote Leave said we would be able to do our own trade deals by leaving, and that requires leaving the customs union. You didn't quote the full text of the Attorney General's altered legal advice before the 2nd vote. There was a section where it clearly said the new legal add on to the backstop had "reduced" the threat of being trapped in the backstop. The Government pledge on extra money for the NHS has only come about because of the Brexit vote. The figure on the Vote Leave bus and Leave winning the referendum is what has influenced the government to pledge that extra money before 2024. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit.
Bless you for your metronomic predictability.
So you've been around for three referenda then?
Are you saying that a significantly higher proportion of the young did not vote for remain compared to the proportion of the old voting to leave? Perhaps you are just creating another distraction?
Enjoy the constructive ambiguity that a Fullfact lays out very clearly...or unclearly :
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
The Attorney General's advice verbatim:
"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement."
There is no Brexit dividend to spend as costs of Brexit will outweigh the benefits over the period in question. The promise is also only for £394million by the last week of 2024.
Any increased spending would come from increased taxation, increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere.
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
Your first link to full fact is reference to the customs union which is a completely different thing to the single market.
But even so Vote Leave said we would be able to do our own trade deals by leaving, and that requires leaving the customs union.
You didn't quote the full text of the Attorney General's altered legal advice before the 2nd vote. There was a section where it clearly said the new legal add on to the backstop had "reduced" the threat of being trapped in the backstop.
The Government pledge on extra money for the NHS has only come about because of the Brexit vote. The figure on the Vote Leave bus and Leave winning the referendum is what has influenced the government to pledge that extra money before 2024.
"You don't understand what "constructive ambiguity" means then. Ithe link refers to all of the various phrases used to generate confusion. You didn't actually read it. Too many words I guess and none in capitals with an exclamation mark. That's your issue, not mine, although you have just demonstrated it rather abley
The Attorney General thinks that here is a "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. That's not a legal opinion. It's just his opinion.
That is also an example of constructive ambiguity by the way.
His legal opinion has not changed though has it? "the legal risk remains unchanged" is as unambiguous a phrase as any lawyer can make 
So no argument that there is no money or that it will come from tax, borrowing or cuts in other areas? No debate that it is not actually £350million per week more but a mathematical trick to generate a headline to try to prove that Brexit will deliver? | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit.
Bless you for your metronomic predictability.
So you've been around for three referenda then?
Are you saying that a significantly higher proportion of the young did not vote for remain compared to the proportion of the old voting to leave? Perhaps you are just creating another distraction?
Enjoy the constructive ambiguity that a Fullfact lays out very clearly...or unclearly :
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
The Attorney General's advice verbatim:
"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement."
There is no Brexit dividend to spend as costs of Brexit will outweigh the benefits over the period in question. The promise is also only for £394million by the last week of 2024.
Any increased spending would come from increased taxation, increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere.
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
Your first link to full fact is reference to the customs union which is a completely different thing to the single market.
But even so Vote Leave said we would be able to do our own trade deals by leaving, and that requires leaving the customs union.
You didn't quote the full text of the Attorney General's altered legal advice before the 2nd vote. There was a section where it clearly said the new legal add on to the backstop had "reduced" the threat of being trapped in the backstop.
The Government pledge on extra money for the NHS has only come about because of the Brexit vote. The figure on the Vote Leave bus and Leave winning the referendum is what has influenced the government to pledge that extra money before 2024.
You don't understand what "constructive ambiguity" means then. Ithe link refers to all of the various phrases used to generate confusion. You didn't actually read it.
Too many words I guess and none in capitals with an exclamation mark.
That's your issue, not mine, although you have just demonstrated it rather abley
The Attorney General thinks that here is a "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. That's not a legal opinion. It's just his opinion.
That is also an example of constructive ambiguity by the way.
His legal opinion has not changed though has it? "the legal risk remains unchanged" is as unambiguous a phrase as any lawyer can make
So no argument that there is no money or that it will come from tax, borrowing or cuts in other areas? No debate that it is not actually £350million per week more but a mathematical trick to generate a headline to try to prove that Brexit will deliver? "There is no confusion on my part. The only one trying to create confusion here is you. First you talk about the single market in earlier posts then when proved wrong you try to switch to talking about the customs union, which is a completely separate thing. As you appear to be the one who is confused I'll spell it out for you. Vote leave said free movement of people would end, that requires leaving the Single market. Vote Leave said we can do our own trade deals, that requires leaving the customs union. To suggest the Attorney general's advice is not a legal opinion is ridiculous. He's a fully trained lawyer and holds the position in Government of attorney general. Therefore his opinion is a legal opinion and requires no further explanation. Part of the extra money pledged for the NHS by the government after Brexit will come from money saved by not having to pay the EU annual membership fee after we've left. The government has pledged the £350 million a week promised by vote Leave, plus extra on top. It is Brexit and the vote to leave which has been fundamental in influencing the government into pledging that extra money for the NHS. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit.
Bless you for your metronomic predictability.
So you've been around for three referenda then?
Are you saying that a significantly higher proportion of the young did not vote for remain compared to the proportion of the old voting to leave? Perhaps you are just creating another distraction?
Enjoy the constructive ambiguity that a Fullfact lays out very clearly...or unclearly :
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
The Attorney General's advice verbatim:
"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement."
There is no Brexit dividend to spend as costs of Brexit will outweigh the benefits over the period in question. The promise is also only for £394million by the last week of 2024.
Any increased spending would come from increased taxation, increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere.
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
Your first link to full fact is reference to the customs union which is a completely different thing to the single market.
But even so Vote Leave said we would be able to do our own trade deals by leaving, and that requires leaving the customs union.
You didn't quote the full text of the Attorney General's altered legal advice before the 2nd vote. There was a section where it clearly said the new legal add on to the backstop had "reduced" the threat of being trapped in the backstop.
The Government pledge on extra money for the NHS has only come about because of the Brexit vote. The figure on the Vote Leave bus and Leave winning the referendum is what has influenced the government to pledge that extra money before 2024.
You don't understand what "constructive ambiguity" means then. Ithe link refers to all of the various phrases used to generate confusion. You didn't actually read it.
Too many words I guess and none in capitals with an exclamation mark.
That's your issue, not mine, although you have just demonstrated it rather abley
The Attorney General thinks that here is a "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. That's not a legal opinion. It's just his opinion.
That is also an example of constructive ambiguity by the way.
His legal opinion has not changed though has it? "the legal risk remains unchanged" is as unambiguous a phrase as any lawyer can make
So no argument that there is no money or that it will come from tax, borrowing or cuts in other areas? No debate that it is not actually £350million per week more but a mathematical trick to generate a headline to try to prove that Brexit will deliver?
There is no confusion on my part. The only one trying to create confusion here is you.
First you talk about the single market in earlier posts then when proved wrong you try to switch to talking about the customs union, which is a completely separate thing.
As you appear to be the one who is confused I'll spell it out for you.
Vote leave said free movement of people would end, that requires leaving the Single market.
Vote Leave said we can do our own trade deals, that requires leaving the customs union.
To suggest the Attorney general's advice is not a legal opinion is ridiculous. He's a fully trained lawyer and holds the position in Government of attorney general. Therefore his opinion is a legal opinion and requires no further explanation.
Part of the extra money pledged for the NHS by the government after Brexit will come from money saved by not having to pay the EU annual membership fee after we've left. The government has pledged the £350 million a week promised by vote Leave, plus extra on top. It is Brexit and the vote to leave which has been fundamental in influencing the government into pledging that extra money for the NHS. "Vote Leave were also convicted of electoral fraud. And there is no Brexit dividend. We will be losing money leaving. Why is this so hard to grasp? The money we pay in as members makes us way more back. Hundreds of times more back. So there ain’t extra money for anything. There’s less money. You don’t think we paid the EU for something they wasn’t an asset to the UK economy do you? And.. if you believe so, how do you explain the UK going from 20th wealthiest nation in 1974 to 5th in 2016? | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit. " The extra money for the NHS is NOT a Brexit dividend....the Chancellor told us that | |||
| |||
| |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit. The extra money for the NHS is NOT a Brexit dividend....the Chancellor told us that" We're already upto £800 million a week worse off since the referendum so there goes any Brexit dividend even if a brexit dividend was real to start with. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It amazes me that, after all this time, some people still measure the value of the EU purely in terms of the UK annual contribution, and completely ignore the revenue that contribution generates for the Treasury from business activity in the pan-European market. " Straight away it reveals they know absolutely nothing about the situation. This one reason why it’s so tedious trying to debate / argue with them at times.
| |||
"It amazes me that, after all this time, some people still measure the value of the EU purely in terms of the UK annual contribution, and completely ignore the revenue that contribution generates for the Treasury from business activity in the pan-European market. Straight away it reveals they know absolutely nothing about the situation. This one reason why it’s so tedious trying to debate / argue with them at times.
"That is right | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm just bored with it ....why have a vote ...yet again minority rule majority...total shit ...i for one will never vote Tory ever again ...but then again I can't vote for jc ....so I guess I'm a lost cause ....like so may others " Why can't you vote for JC? Which Labour policy or policies are you opposed to? | |||
"I'm just bored with it ....why have a vote ...yet again minority rule majority...total shit ...i for one will never vote Tory ever again ...but then again I can't vote for jc ....so I guess I'm a lost cause ....like so may others Why can't you vote for JC? Which Labour policy or policies are you opposed to?" I couldn't ever vote Labour while JC is their leader and Abbot in her position. | |||
"I'm just bored with it ....why have a vote ...yet again minority rule majority...total shit ...i for one will never vote Tory ever again ...but then again I can't vote for jc ....so I guess I'm a lost cause ....like so may others " you can always abstain ? | |||
 | |||
"I couldn't ever vote Labour while JC is their leader and Abbot in her position. " Again, why? Which policies are you opposed to? | |||
 | |||
| |||
"My view for what it’s worth The majority voted leave I would rather just leave on WTO terms on the 29 th However Labour and some conservatives have opposed this position You have the Wally that is Corbyn saying he wants to stay in the customs union ( even though it was made clear in 2016 we would leave customs union ECJ etc Second point all MP’s votes for No deal if we didn’t have a deal on the 29th We now have TM deal which granted isn’t great and personally would rather we leave with no deal However if it meant No Brexit then I would support her deal But come general election I hope that all of them lose their seats as they are all a shower of shites & collectively they have all betrayed the country " This is the problem with only 37% of the voting population wanting to leave - especially when we’d all been lied to by Leave... | |||
| |||
"We are going to get screwed, and not in a good way. The EU has shown us how much contempt they hold us in, and yet our govt is still pandering to them. Let us be certain of one major thing, taking no deal off the table has fucked up our chances of ever getting anything beneficial from the EU, and played right into their hands. It was the only real bargaining chip we had, and it has been tossed aside. We will end up staying in the EU, only without so much as a veto this time. May has thrown it away, and done so deliberately..." If we revoke A50, we go back to where we were. You know it makes sense... | |||
"I couldn't ever vote Labour while JC is their leader and Abbot in her position. Again, why? Which policies are you opposed to?" Nuclear deterrent. Increased Trade Union strikes like we had in the 70's & 80's through more union power. Three-year tenancies contracts and rent caps "depending on what they'd cap at". It's not necessarily the policies though, it's the people and I don't think I really need to point out Diane Abbots inadequacies especially regarding the position in government she'd take nor JC's stance on our Nuclear deterrent, ohh and all the cosying upto Terrorist organisations over the years. | |||
"We are going to get screwed, and not in a good way. The EU has shown us how much contempt they hold us in, and yet our govt is still pandering to them. Let us be certain of one major thing, taking no deal off the table has fucked up our chances of ever getting anything beneficial from the EU, and played right into their hands. It was the only real bargaining chip we had, and it has been tossed aside. We will end up staying in the EU, only without so much as a veto this time. May has thrown it away, and done so deliberately..." You only see it as contempt because the EU haven't rolled over to every single demand from us like you were promised in the lead up to the referendum. Secondly, it's Parliament as a whole that want no deal off the table, not May. | |||
| |||
"What's wrong with Diane Abbott ? Have I missed something ? " LOL, have a watch of her best interviews online, she can hardly ever answer a question and when she does its often a car crash. I think if she was in office she'd make Chris Greyling look competent also she's JC's old shag piece, she said she hates our Monarchy. It'll be a bad day if she ever gets into government. | |||
| |||
"I couldn't ever vote Labour while JC is their leader and Abbot in her position. Again, why? Which policies are you opposed to? Nuclear deterrent. Increased Trade Union strikes like we had in the 70's & 80's through more union power. Three-year tenancies contracts and rent caps "depending on what they'd cap at". It's not necessarily the policies though, it's the people and I don't think I really need to point out Diane Abbots inadequacies especially regarding the position in government she'd take nor JC's stance on our Nuclear deterrent, ohh and all the cosying upto Terrorist organisations over the years. " (Reposted as my phone changed my wording) If we continue to vote for people over policies we’ll forever continue to have shit governments. Look at this lot we have in now. People voted for this but you tell me who’s happy with them? Labour with Corbyn as leader would be the very best government the UK has ever had. People want change - they are sick are of the same old neoliberal governments putting the interests of foreign corporations in front of society’s. Truth is they don’t even consider us but for when an election is coming up. If we want change then we obviously have to vote for it. And voting greens or UKIP etc is a vote for the Tories. Look at who the media attacks the most - Corbyn. The corporate media is the enemy of all people in Britain. The enemy of my enemy is my friend | |||
| |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". " I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. " Its not personal for me i dont like his policy's him and his mate mcdonnell will take us back to the 70,s. | |||
"My view for what it’s worth The majority voted leave I would rather just leave on WTO terms on the 29 th However Labour and some conservatives have opposed this position You have the Wally that is Corbyn saying he wants to stay in the customs union ( even though it was made clear in 2016 we would leave customs union ECJ etc Second point all MP’s votes for No deal if we didn’t have a deal on the 29th We now have TM deal which granted isn’t great and personally would rather we leave with no deal However if it meant No Brexit then I would support her deal But come general election I hope that all of them lose their seats as they are all a shower of shites & collectively they have all betrayed the country This is the problem with only 37% of the voting population wanting to leave - especially when we’d all been lied to by Leave..." Where do you get the stats from from my understanding there are plenty of people who voted Remain have now changed to leave | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. Its not personal for me i dont like his policy's him and his mate mcdonnell will take us back to the 70,s." He’s not Marty Mcfly Which policies? | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. Its not personal for me i dont like his policy's him and his mate mcdonnell will take us back to the 70,s." Erm.... didn’t you vote to send us back to 1973? | |||
"We are going to get screwed, and not in a good way. The EU has shown us how much contempt they hold us in, and yet our govt is still pandering to them. Let us be certain of one major thing, taking no deal off the table has fucked up our chances of ever getting anything beneficial from the EU, and played right into their hands. It was the only real bargaining chip we had, and it has been tossed aside. We will end up staying in the EU, only without so much as a veto this time. May has thrown it away, and done so deliberately..." The EU gave us a transition agreement that met every redline except for the backstop which was not a "thing" for leavers until recently. You can say that you don't like the negotiated deal but you have nothing from this that implies contempt. However, at this stage I wouldn't blame them as we still have no idea as a country about what we want. So now you concur that our only bargaining point is no deal which is more disasterius for us than any individual EU country. They make their decisions based on individual profit and loss due to their sovereignty. That very clearly means that we were always in the weaker position. Your opinions about what Brexit means don't represent even the view of those who voted leave so your outrage is for your own enjoyment alone. | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. Its not personal for me i dont like his policy's him and his mate mcdonnell will take us back to the 70,s. Erm.... didn’t you vote to send us back to 1973? " Yeah but without the unions trying to wreck the country,dont think for one minute russian involvement in politics is a new thing they were paying union leaders years ago. | |||
"We are going to get screwed, and not in a good way. The EU has shown us how much contempt they hold us in, and yet our govt is still pandering to them. Let us be certain of one major thing, taking no deal off the table has fucked up our chances of ever getting anything beneficial from the EU, and played right into their hands. It was the only real bargaining chip we had, and it has been tossed aside. We will end up staying in the EU, only without so much as a veto this time. May has thrown it away, and done so deliberately..." Did you ever see the film Blazing Saddles? The Sheriff had a “no deal” plan. Threatening the E.U. with a “no deal” Brexit is akin to the new Sheriff holding a gun to his own head and threatening to shoot himself. The “No deal” idea came about purely because Leavers needed to have something that they could declare a win for themselves, even if the win was in reality a calamitous loss. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's all so very ridiculous. Even baldrick had a plan! "Anyone got a turnip?  | |||
| |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. " I can easily dislike someone by what they have said and what they have done over decades, meeting them for 5 minutes has bugger all to do with forming opinions. | |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood " Ooh I've been pipped at the post, lol. Just flicked on the news as it was breaking. Of course, he's absolutely right. So, how much more speculating do we think the BBC will engage in? I think things are now pretty straightforward. The EU have already made it categorically clear - there will be no further renegotiation or discussion over the deal that the UK has been offered. That is it. That is final. So, if the PM were to go back to the EU this week and ask for an extension to article 50, she is going to have to give them a reason why it will be needed. As her deal is now deader than a DoDo, I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that the 27 members would all agree to an extension - unless the PM decides to concede that either a 2nd Referendum (still not a fan of this idea) or even a General election should be called. Realistically, I think that they are the only legitimate grounds for the EU granting an extension So, looking even more like we're going out without a deal on 29th | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. Its not personal for me i dont like his policy's him and his mate mcdonnell will take us back to the 70,s. Erm.... didn’t you vote to send us back to 1973? Yeah but without the unions trying to wreck the country,dont think for one minute russian involvement in politics is a new thing they were paying union leaders years ago." Errrmmmmm. Unions will play a much bigger role in uk life when we lose the protection for workers that the E.U. gives. Unions played a vital role in the 70s protecting workers. | |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood " I wouldn't be so pleased if i was a remainer if thats took her deal off the table the only outcome is no deal.I see tusk is trying to rally the troops as the eu is very worried now that countries like italy will want something in return for voting for a long extension.I saw somewhere online today that some in the eu would be happier with the uk leaving with no deal rather than hanging on and giving more credence to people like le penn in the upcoming elections.Its all up to the PM she doesn't have to ask for an extension. | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. Its not personal for me i dont like his policy's him and his mate mcdonnell will take us back to the 70,s. Erm.... didn’t you vote to send us back to 1973? Yeah but without the unions trying to wreck the country,dont think for one minute russian involvement in politics is a new thing they were paying union leaders years ago. Errrmmmmm. Unions will play a much bigger role in uk life when we lose the protection for workers that the E.U. gives. Unions played a vital role in the 70s protecting workers." Didn't protect people who wanted to work but couldn't because of closed shops. | |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood I wouldn't be so pleased if i was a remainer if thats took her deal off the table the only outcome is no deal.I see tusk is trying to rally the troops as the eu is very worried now that countries like italy will want something in return for voting for a long extension.I saw somewhere online today that some in the eu would be happier with the uk leaving with no deal rather than hanging on and giving more credence to people like le penn in the upcoming elections.Its all up to the PM she doesn't have to ask for an extension. " Parliament voted against no deal, so if the EU don’t allow a long extension, then May revokes A50. No deal is not going to happen. | |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood I wouldn't be so pleased if i was a remainer if thats took her deal off the table the only outcome is no deal.I see tusk is trying to rally the troops as the eu is very worried now that countries like italy will want something in return for voting for a long extension.I saw somewhere online today that some in the eu would be happier with the uk leaving with no deal rather than hanging on and giving more credence to people like le penn in the upcoming elections.Its all up to the PM she doesn't have to ask for an extension. Parliament voted against no deal, so if the EU don’t allow a long extension, then May revokes A50. No deal is not going to happen." That was not a binding vote nor was extending A50, the default position due to the law is leave on the 29th and its to late to change that now even if they tried. | |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood I wouldn't be so pleased if i was a remainer if thats took her deal off the table the only outcome is no deal.I see tusk is trying to rally the troops as the eu is very worried now that countries like italy will want something in return for voting for a long extension.I saw somewhere online today that some in the eu would be happier with the uk leaving with no deal rather than hanging on and giving more credence to people like le penn in the upcoming elections.Its all up to the PM she doesn't have to ask for an extension. Parliament voted against no deal, so if the EU don’t allow a long extension, then May revokes A50. No deal is not going to happen.That was not a binding vote nor was extending A50, the default position due to the law is leave on the 29th and its to late to change that now even if they tried." Incorrect, A50 can be revoked easily and if EU agree an extension it ‘trumps’ domestic law on this one. | |||
| |||
"The UK and northern Ireland are going to be very grim indeed , the whole of it , not just up north ! " Why? | |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood I wouldn't be so pleased if i was a remainer if thats took her deal off the table the only outcome is no deal.I see tusk is trying to rally the troops as the eu is very worried now that countries like italy will want something in return for voting for a long extension.I saw somewhere online today that some in the eu would be happier with the uk leaving with no deal rather than hanging on and giving more credence to people like le penn in the upcoming elections.Its all up to the PM she doesn't have to ask for an extension. Parliament voted against no deal, so if the EU don’t allow a long extension, then May revokes A50. No deal is not going to happen." As a lot of remoaners claim about the referendum (despite what David Cameron said) the votes on the ammendments in the commons are not binding on the government. The house has not voted in favour of the deal. By law, we leave on 29th March whether we have an agreed deal or not. I very much doubt that any member of the house with any ambition of retaining their seat at the next general election would dare propose revoking A50 | |||
| |||
"Bercow just plays a blinder.... rules same bill cannot be brought back, which means they will have to go back to Brussels for more concessions! The government will be spitting blood I wouldn't be so pleased if i was a remainer if thats took her deal off the table the only outcome is no deal.I see tusk is trying to rally the troops as the eu is very worried now that countries like italy will want something in return for voting for a long extension.I saw somewhere online today that some in the eu would be happier with the uk leaving with no deal rather than hanging on and giving more credence to people like le penn in the upcoming elections.Its all up to the PM she doesn't have to ask for an extension. Parliament voted against no deal, so if the EU don’t allow a long extension, then May revokes A50. No deal is not going to happen.That was not a binding vote nor was extending A50, the default position due to the law is leave on the 29th and its to late to change that now even if they tried. Incorrect, A50 can be revoked easily and if EU agree an extension it ‘trumps’ domestic law on this one." If you think the tories are going to revoke A50 your living in cuckoo land,the eu cant grant an extension unless the PM asks for one and if she does she doesn't have to accept it so no it does not trump uk law. | |||
| |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours." Why do you think the erg are still holding on and not voting to leave on her deal? they have said that there is means available to delay any change in the law and it wont happen before the 29th. | |||
"Brexit is not going to happen on 29/3 "They won't believe it until the 30th of march.They are deluded. | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. ...and like it or not many of those who voted to leave are now dead and those who can now vote are far more likely to vote to remain. Lies have become apparent. There is no cake and eat it is there? Of course, if you are taking the leaflet to be facts to be followed then you must accept that the best option is to remain the EU. Correct? No im telling you what it said you must have read it written by remainers.How many that voted to leave are dead now? i guess you must have some statistics ive not seen. ...and I am telling you what else the same document said, which you have read and believe or disbelieve. If you disbelieve it then why would you quote lies back to me? If you believe it, then surely you believe the rest? Did you believe that we would get all of the benefits of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities? That's what leavers said. Did you believe that a 48/52 result would be unfi ished business? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that we would stay in the single market? That's what leavers said? Did you believe that there would be £350million a week for the NHS? That's what leavers said. You are arguing for the sake of it now. To "win" a micro-victory unrelated to the point at hand. And cha going the topic. May is repeating votes with the information unchanged. Another referendum would be based on quite different data. Centaur got very upset when I presented them. He accused me of "revelling" in the deaths of old people which was nowhere near reality. As usual. Will you be doing the same? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html It's a study and a statistical calculation. It is not "fact" but it is informed use of data. Before you get carried away, the trend of supporting Brexit more heavily by the old is generational. It's not that you become a leaver when you hit a certain age, it's that you are a leaver because of your upbringing and world view which is very different for those who grew up within the EU. Brexit is a decision made by the old who will not see its full consequences upon the young who don't want it but will suffer it. Yet more nonsense from you on this I see. I've grown up in the EU, the UK was in it when I was born in the late 70's, I still want to leave it now. At my age I will see the full consequences of leaving in my lifetime.....and yet I still want to leave. The consequences of leaving will be beneficial to the UK anyway, not the negative you believe it to be. Leavers did not say we would stay in the single market, quite the opposite in fact, the Vote Leave campaign said to end EU free movement would require leaving the single market. May is not bringing back repeated votes with information unchanged, she's had 2 votes on her deal, the 2nd vote had an additional legal add on to the backstop which required the attorney general Geoffrey Cox to alter his legal advice to say the threat of being trapped in the backstop had been 'reduced' so it was a change from information presented in the first vote. On the £350 million extra for the NHS that was on the side of the bus, the government has gone beyond that amount and pledged an extra £380 million a week for the NHS after Brexit.
Bless you for your metronomic predictability.
So you've been around for three referenda then?
Are you saying that a significantly higher proportion of the young did not vote for remain compared to the proportion of the old voting to leave? Perhaps you are just creating another distraction?
Enjoy the constructive ambiguity that a Fullfact lays out very clearly...or unclearly :
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
The Attorney General's advice verbatim:
"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement."
There is no Brexit dividend to spend as costs of Brexit will outweigh the benefits over the period in question. The promise is also only for £394million by the last week of 2024.
Any increased spending would come from increased taxation, increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere.
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
Your first link to full fact is reference to the customs union which is a completely different thing to the single market.
But even so Vote Leave said we would be able to do our own trade deals by leaving, and that requires leaving the customs union.
You didn't quote the full text of the Attorney General's altered legal advice before the 2nd vote. There was a section where it clearly said the new legal add on to the backstop had "reduced" the threat of being trapped in the backstop.
The Government pledge on extra money for the NHS has only come about because of the Brexit vote. The figure on the Vote Leave bus and Leave winning the referendum is what has influenced the government to pledge that extra money before 2024.
You don't understand what "constructive ambiguity" means then. Ithe link refers to all of the various phrases used to generate confusion. You didn't actually read it.
Too many words I guess and none in capitals with an exclamation mark.
That's your issue, not mine, although you have just demonstrated it rather abley
The Attorney General thinks that here is a "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. That's not a legal opinion. It's just his opinion.
That is also an example of constructive ambiguity by the way.
His legal opinion has not changed though has it? "the legal risk remains unchanged" is as unambiguous a phrase as any lawyer can make
So no argument that there is no money or that it will come from tax, borrowing or cuts in other areas? No debate that it is not actually £350million per week more but a mathematical trick to generate a headline to try to prove that Brexit will deliver?
There is no confusion on my part. The only one trying to create confusion here is you.
First you talk about the single market in earlier posts then when proved wrong you try to switch to talking about the customs union, which is a completely separate thing.
As you appear to be the one who is confused I'll spell it out for you.
Vote leave said free movement of people would end, that requires leaving the Single market.
Vote Leave said we can do our own trade deals, that requires leaving the customs union.
To suggest the Attorney general's advice is not a legal opinion is ridiculous. He's a fully trained lawyer and holds the position in Government of attorney general. Therefore his opinion is a legal opinion and requires no further explanation.
Part of the extra money pledged for the NHS by the government after Brexit will come from money saved by not having to pay the EU annual membership fee after we've left. The government has pledged the £350 million a week promised by vote Leave, plus extra on top. It is Brexit and the vote to leave which has been fundamental in influencing the government into pledging that extra money for the NHS. "No Centaur. You are once again demonstrating exactly how the leave campaign deliberately confused their message. Single market, single market access, free trade area, customs union. To most people they sound like the same thing even if they aren't. Try actually reading through the full act link. Fhe Attorney General wrote a letter. Some is political opinion. Some is personal opinion. Some is legal opinion. They are different. His personal opinion is that the "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. This means that he doesn't think they intend to be mean to us. His legal opinion is written in as clear away as is possible to do so. Here it is again: "the legal risk remains unchanged". What do those words mean to you? None of the extra money for the NHS has been accounted for in any savings from Brexit as the government expect none. They expect a net cost. | |||
"No Centaur. You are once again demonstrating exactly how the leave campaign deliberately confused their message. Single market, single market access, free trade area, customs union. To most people they sound like the same thing even if they aren't. Try actually reading through the full act link. Fhe Attorney General wrote a letter. Some is political opinion. Some is personal opinion. Some is legal opinion. They are different. His personal opinion is that the "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. This means that he doesn't think they intend to be mean to us. His legal opinion is written in as clear away as is possible to do so. Here it is again: "the legal risk remains unchanged". What do those words mean to you? None of the extra money for the NHS has been accounted for in any savings from Brexit as the government expect none. They expect a net cost." Utter bollocks! I remember very clearly that both Leave and Remain campaigns made it crystal clear that leaving the EU would mean leaving both the single market AND the customs union. This is why I really can't understand Corbyn, who somehow wants to keep hold of some sort of membership of both. | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. " People have never seen Corbyn? He's been on our television screens for decades. Just look at all those old episodes of Steptoe and son he appeared in. | |||
"No JC & No Abbott then I may be able to hold my nose and vote Labour "if I can ignore Labour brought Islamic Terrorism to the UK". I’ve never been so happy to vote Labour than with Corbyn as leader. People who I know very well and trust who’ve met him, sat with him and talked with him say he’s a really decent bloke. Now how many politicians can that be said about in the Tory government? Just the sight of them could turn milk sour. Most people that dislike him you have to admit, have never even seen the fella. They wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for the media. So they’re putting a hell of a lot of faith in the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of him. Not saying you’ve done that but it’s hard not to think there’s not smoke without fire I appreciate that. But we’re being deceived about him more than any other politician in our lifetimes. Labour’s policies are geared towards the interests of people. Why not give them a chance and see. If it don’t work out vote different next time. People have never seen Corbyn? He's been on our television screens for decades. Just look at all those old episodes of Steptoe and son he appeared in. "It wasn’t funny when the corporate media came out with it. It’s even less funny hearing it from someone they step on. | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours." Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. " You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings. | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings." Didn't realise they had the internet and the internal combustion etc in the stone age! Typical exaggeration from this poster! | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings. Didn't realise they had the internet and the internal combustion etc in the stone age! Typical exaggeration from this poster!" Internal combustion engine! | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings." It truly would be a beautiful poetic justice if the EU put the final nail in the coffin of remainers hopes to remain by refusing an extension. | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings. Didn't realise they had the internet and the internal combustion etc in the stone age! Typical exaggeration from this poster! Internal combustion engine! "Are you arguing with yourself? | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings. It truly would be a beautiful poetic justice if the EU put the final nail in the coffin of remainers hopes to remain by refusing an extension. "Wasn't "sovreighnty" one of your main reasons for wanting Brexit? And now you're saying you want our fate at the hands of the EU. I don't think you've got a grasp on what irony means. | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings. It truly would be a beautiful poetic justice if the EU put the final nail in the coffin of remainers hopes to remain by refusing an extension. "It will be poetic justice when May cancel the A50 | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings." You are getting more dramatic every day,i cant believe anyone can be so negative. | |||
"No Centaur. You are once again demonstrating exactly how the leave campaign deliberately confused their message. Single market, single market access, free trade area, customs union. To most people they sound like the same thing even if they aren't. Try actually reading through the full act link. Fhe Attorney General wrote a letter. Some is political opinion. Some is personal opinion. Some is legal opinion. They are different. His personal opinion is that the "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. This means that he doesn't think they intend to be mean to us. His legal opinion is written in as clear away as is possible to do so. Here it is again: "the legal risk remains unchanged". What do those words mean to you? None of the extra money for the NHS has been accounted for in any savings from Brexit as the government expect none. They expect a net cost. Utter bollocks! I remember very clearly that both Leave and Remain campaigns made it crystal clear that leaving the EU would mean leaving both the single market AND the customs union. This is why I really can't understand Corbyn, who somehow wants to keep hold of some sort of membership of both. " “There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone. “The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine would stay part of this free trade area - and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus - is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP. “Agreeing to maintain this continental free trade zone is the simple course and emphatically in everyone’s interests.” Michael Gove "To repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market". Daniel Hannan “Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK”. Aaron Banks Liars? | |||
"No Centaur. You are once again demonstrating exactly how the leave campaign deliberately confused their message. Single market, single market access, free trade area, customs union. To most people they sound like the same thing even if they aren't. Try actually reading through the full act link. Fhe Attorney General wrote a letter. Some is political opinion. Some is personal opinion. Some is legal opinion. They are different. His personal opinion is that the "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. This means that he doesn't think they intend to be mean to us. His legal opinion is written in as clear away as is possible to do so. Here it is again: "the legal risk remains unchanged". What do those words mean to you? None of the extra money for the NHS has been accounted for in any savings from Brexit as the government expect none. They expect a net cost. Utter bollocks! I remember very clearly that both Leave and Remain campaigns made it crystal clear that leaving the EU would mean leaving both the single market AND the customs union. This is why I really can't understand Corbyn, who somehow wants to keep hold of some sort of membership of both. “There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone. “The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine would stay part of this free trade area - and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus - is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP. “Agreeing to maintain this continental free trade zone is the simple course and emphatically in everyone’s interests.” Michael Gove "To repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market". Daniel Hannan “Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK”. Aaron Banks Liars? " Michael Gove was one of the leading representatives of the official vote Leave campaign. He appeared on the BBC Andrew Marr show during the referendum campaign in 2016 and Andrew Marr asked him a straight question.... Marr = "should we stay in the single market or leave the single market". Gove = "We should leave the single market". Crystal clear answer with no ambiguity or confusion. Neither Daniel Hannan or Aaron Banks were part of the official Vote Leave campaign. | |||
"No Centaur. You are once again demonstrating exactly how the leave campaign deliberately confused their message. Single market, single market access, free trade area, customs union. To most people they sound like the same thing even if they aren't. Try actually reading through the full act link. Fhe Attorney General wrote a letter. Some is political opinion. Some is personal opinion. Some is legal opinion. They are different. His personal opinion is that the "reduced risk" of being stuck in the backstop due to bad faith on the part of the EU. This means that he doesn't think they intend to be mean to us. His legal opinion is written in as clear away as is possible to do so. Here it is again: "the legal risk remains unchanged". What do those words mean to you? None of the extra money for the NHS has been accounted for in any savings from Brexit as the government expect none. They expect a net cost. Utter bollocks! I remember very clearly that both Leave and Remain campaigns made it crystal clear that leaving the EU would mean leaving both the single market AND the customs union. This is why I really can't understand Corbyn, who somehow wants to keep hold of some sort of membership of both. “There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone. “The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine would stay part of this free trade area - and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus - is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP. “Agreeing to maintain this continental free trade zone is the simple course and emphatically in everyone’s interests.” Michael Gove "To repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market". Daniel Hannan “Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK”. Aaron Banks Liars? Michael Gove was one of the leading representatives of the official vote Leave campaign. He appeared on the BBC Andrew Marr show during the referendum campaign in 2016 and Andrew Marr asked him a straight question.... Marr = "should we stay in the single market or leave the single market". Gove = "We should leave the single market". Crystal clear answer with no ambiguity or confusion. Neither Daniel Hannan or Aaron Banks were part of the official Vote Leave campaign. " Except for his and his chums'confusing and contradictory messages and the entire parallel leave campaign | |||
| |||
"Bercow Smirked Brexit be damned ! Has he done the right thing for the UK ? " Probably. May is deliberately trying to run down the clock and bounce MPs into making a poor decision under pressure. The government has deliberately wasted Parliamentary time to contrive thus situation. | |||
"Bercow Smirked Brexit be damned ! Has he done the right thing for the UK ? Probably. May is deliberately trying to run down the clock and bounce MPs into making a poor decision under pressure. The government has deliberately wasted Parliamentary time to contrive thus situation. " thanks I agree | |||
"All that is required to amend the exit date is a statutory instrument to be presented to both Houses and voted on. That could be done in 24 hours. Wrong, as the exit date of 29th March is set in both UK law and EU law. It's in EU law as stated in the terms of article 50 (exactly 2 years from the date article 50 is triggered). It's in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill. The UK parliament can change the date in UK law in the EU withdrawal bill but cannot change EU law as that would require change to the treaty at EU level, and EU law supercedes UK law while we remain a member of the EU. If the EU refused to extend or just 1 country vetoed any extension we leave with no deal on March 29th. You seem to be celebrating that another country has the power to fuck this country back to the stone age on a whim. I haven’t checked your post btw. I assume like most of what you post it’s based on half truths and misunderstandings. Didn't realise they had the internet and the internal combustion etc in the stone age! Typical exaggeration from this poster! Internal combustion engine!
Are you arguing with yourself? "No, with you, just missed a word out! You didn't say if they had all this technology in the stone age,just to put you right they didn't so we definitely won't be returning to the stone age! | |||
| |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw " I hope so | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw I hope so "Why? | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw " they say if mps don't accept Mays deal they won't agree to an extension It's on the BBC news channel | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw I hope so
Why? "This phase of Brexit needs to be brought to an end now and enable us to move onto the next phase negotiating trade. We have a government and parliament paralysed by their own inaction and we need an outside force to push us out of this ludicrous impass. | |||
| |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw they say if mps don't accept Mays deal they won't agree to an extension It's on the BBC news channel " Can you blame them? What’s the point in agreeing anything with May when her own party keeps stabbing her in the back? | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw they say if mps don't accept Mays deal they won't agree to an extension It's on the BBC news channel Can you blame them? What’s the point in agreeing anything with May when her own party keeps stabbing her in the back? " exactly ! Apparently it's just given out the elysse palace has denied it , sorry I haven't a clue how to spell the palace s name haha | |||
"Despite the fact that the deal, no matter how bad it seems, is only transitional, it is not a deal to secure our long term relationship (a fact that seems lost on many both here and in Parliament). It is only designed to act as a transitional tool between our current membership and a longer term arrangement. Doesn't it seem funny that the same people who deride the Maybot for bringing the same paperwork to the table 2 or 3 times to try to change the result, are the same people that are asking for a second referendum? Irony defined. Not so much. She is bringing back an unaltered agreement. Another referendum would be based on new information. We know that the promises were undeliverable. Regardleas, the point is that if multiple votes are allowed for May why not for the general population? Because referendums are supposed to be once in a lifetime as advertised by the remain campaign in the leaflet put through every door in the country and the commons have votes all the time. " It was presupposed that the referendum would be fully legal and people would be told the truth by the conservatives, ukip and shadow financiers who spent obscene amounts on promotion, including illegally obtained materials to pervert democracy. Those elements should have been more than enough to set the results aside. As democracy is a fluid ongoing process, we should hold those who wish it not so, with concerned contempt. Many people correctly ensure the sovereignty of parliament continues and this power should reflect contemporary intelligence of the people not an archaic ignorance based on an illegal underworld. Most right minded people correct mistakes and aren't rigid, with deficits in their cognitive styles, restricting support for other perspectives and needs. There are very simple drivers behind citizens having their current needs met, otherwise we'd always be seeking what ghosts of yesteryear once wished for. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw I hope so
Why?
This phase of Brexit needs to be brought to an end now and enable us to move onto the next phase negotiating trade.
We have a government and parliament paralysed by their own inaction and we need an outside force to push us out of this ludicrous impass. "You say that as if we are deciding which milkshake to buy. A no deal exit is not equivalent to a deal of any description. The consequences will be severe and long term. No deal is worse than a bad deal. Repeating a phrase that claims the opposite does not make it true. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw " Or revoke Article 50, until such time as there's public desire and an effective government. It would require an intelligent leader solely focused on the country's interests, instead of their obstructive party's needs. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw I hope so
Why?
This phase of Brexit needs to be brought to an end now and enable us to move onto the next phase negotiating trade.
We have a government and parliament paralysed by their own inaction and we need an outside force to push us out of this ludicrous impass.
You say that as if we are deciding which milkshake to buy.
A no deal exit is not equivalent to a deal of any description.
The consequences will be severe and long term.
No deal is worse than a bad deal. Repeating a phrase that claims the opposite does not make it true. "As I said, I hope it would push May to crash out or scrap Brexit, either way it needs to end, unless you're happy with this state of paralysed Government then it unfortunately looks like we need to have our hand forced one way or another. We've had 999 days so far to sort this, are you really happy we wait another 999 days, or how about another 1998 days? where do you draw the line? | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Or revoke Article 50, until such time as there's public desire and an effective government. It would require an intelligent leader solely focused on the country's interests, instead of their obstructive party's needs." That I can fully agree with. | |||
" No deal is worse than a bad deal. Repeating a phrase that claims the opposite does not make it true. " I never have | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Or revoke Article 50, until such time as there's public desire and an effective government. It would require an intelligent leader solely focused on the country's interests, instead of their obstructive party's needs." Come on now. No sensible suggestions please. Now this magic Brexit money tree.... what’s the plan? | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw " Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer." What for stopping the same old bit of paper going around and around  | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer." Wrong kind of sovereignty, eh? -Matt | |||
"Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer." It's not Bercow who kept thwarting the exit agreement. The Conservative Party was elected on a manifesto to exit the EU on March 29. Its Conservative MPs who refuse to do what their leader wants them to do. And there's enough who are a hard-core Brextremists that she still won't get this through. Unless she promises to step down, call a General Election and Labour promise to abstain in return. She has dug herself into the most enormous hole imaginable. | |||
" What for stopping the same old bit of paper going around and around "It's coming back with a moustache stapled to the front of it. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer. Wrong kind of sovereignty, eh? -Matt" No double standards ,didnt he say in january "if we stuck to precedence nothing would ever change"? then digs out something from the 1600,s to set a precedence couldnt make it up really .Not that im complaining dont think he thought it out to well as looks like hes made leaving easier. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Or revoke Article 50, until such time as there's public desire and an effective government. It would require an intelligent leader solely focused on the country's interests, instead of their obstructive party's needs." So agree with you, we need to get off this train crash, step back, think and consider what we do actually want for our country | |||
" What for stopping the same old bit of paper going around and around
It's coming back with a moustache stapled to the front of it.
" it might as well do | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw I hope so
Why?
This phase of Brexit needs to be brought to an end now and enable us to move onto the next phase negotiating trade.
We have a government and parliament paralysed by their own inaction and we need an outside force to push us out of this ludicrous impass.
You say that as if we are deciding which milkshake to buy.
A no deal exit is not equivalent to a deal of any description.
The consequences will be severe and long term.
No deal is worse than a bad deal. Repeating a phrase that claims the opposite does not make it true.
As I said, I hope it would push May to crash out or scrap Brexit, either way it needs to end, unless you're happy with this state of paralysed Government then it unfortunately looks like we need to have our hand forced one way or another.
We've had 999 days so far to sort this, are you really happy we wait another 999 days, or how about another 1998 days? where do you draw the line? "That's the problem. That's where May has taken us. Anything to end it! No. Bad decisions are made under these circumstances. Even May's deal vs Remain in a referendum is better. Time and consideration. We've wasted two years but we can still make time with a long delay and a proper cross-party national debate. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer." What a weird reading. May, the DUP and the ERG are to blame along with the Labour Party leadership trying to hedge their bets. If anything, the speaker has given May an opportunity to take a different tack but as an automata she wants to just slam herself against the same wall. | |||
"French newspaper le point has said the French President will not support the UK request for an extension of A50 Crash out next Friday week seems inevitable if he goes through with it tmrw Seems bercow will be to blame if we leave without a deal for not allowing another vote,poetic justice for a remainer. Wrong kind of sovereignty, eh? -MattNo double standards ,didnt he say in january "if we stuck to precedence nothing would ever change"? then digs out something from the 1600,s to set a precedence couldnt make it up really .Not that im complaining dont think he thought it out to well as looks like hes made leaving easier."Lord Kerr was on LBC this evening and explained the reason Bercow used regarding MV3 and the need for substantial change is actually used every week in the House of commons and is normally dealt with by the Clarks of the house when it comes to amendments, readings and what not and that it's just been picked up on because of the subject matter and it being Bercow himself that dealt with it on camera. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? " I doubt the commons could actually agree on what meaningful means lol Shower of shite on the world stage ! | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? " if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changed | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changed" I think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal." Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback!  | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! "Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it. "It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference? | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?"They are terrified of second referendum because the of utter disaster brexit has become. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?"I will if im in the country. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?"I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them. I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then. Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it. | |||
| |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?
I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them.
I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then.
Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it."All the remain economists predicted a deep and immediate recession if we voted Leave.....which didn't happen and the economy continued to grow after we voted Leave. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?
I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them.
I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then.
Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it.
All the remain economists predicted a deep and immediate recession if we voted Leave.....which didn't happen and the economy continued to grow after we voted Leave. "You are actually smart enough to know this related to if we leave - stop grasping at straws | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?
I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them.
I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then.
Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it.
All the remain economists predicted a deep and immediate recession if we voted Leave.....which didn't happen and the economy continued to grow after we voted Leave.
You are actually smart enough to know this related to if we leave - stop grasping at straws"No you're either misinformed or you're deliberately trying to mislead other people. The actual wording of the Treasury was there would be a deep and immediate recession if the country voted Leave. That has now been completely debunked/proved false and no recession ever materialised. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?
I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them.
I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then.
Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it.
All the remain economists predicted a deep and immediate recession if we voted Leave.....which didn't happen and the economy continued to grow after we voted Leave.
You are actually smart enough to know this related to if we leave - stop grasping at straws
No you're either misinformed or you're deliberately trying to mislead other people. The actual wording of the Treasury was there would be a deep and immediate recession if the country voted Leave.
That has now been completely debunked/proved false and no recession ever materialised. "Tell that to the Honda and Nissan workers... | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?
I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them.
I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then.
Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it.
All the remain economists predicted a deep and immediate recession if we voted Leave.....which didn't happen and the economy continued to grow after we voted Leave.
You are actually smart enough to know this related to if we leave - stop grasping at straws
No you're either misinformed or you're deliberately trying to mislead other people. The actual wording of the Treasury was there would be a deep and immediate recession if the country voted Leave.
That has now been completely debunked/proved false and no recession ever materialised.
Tell that to the Honda and Nissan workers..."Honda who's chief executive said the decision to close the Swindon plant had nothing to do with Brexit. As for Nissan factory in Sunderland, none of them have lost their jobs. | |||
"Just out of interest, if we are going for "Meaningful vote" number 3 on the same question, what does "meaningful" mean? if the EU are going to insist that any a50 extension is tied to the meaningful vote, that will be enough for the speaker to allow it as there would need to be a vote in parliament for a50 extention anyway since it would mean the law would need to be changedI think they will say that they will extend a50 if she gets the vote through but no point if she doesn't then the choice is down to her deal or leave with no deal. Might as well revoke A50 and get our negotiating powerback! Yeah fuck what 17.5 million people voted for because you dont like it.
It isn’t just me and its pretty clear not all the 17.4m want this mess either - perhaps next time you will vote and make a difference?
I honestly don’t think they know or care. Just look at people’s attitudes who post on here. In complete denial about what’s going on in the world around them.
I think another referendum would have the same result. 17.4 million believed the bullshit and voted in the interest of a few 1000 ultra rich individuals because they were distracted with lies and photos of brown people walking through Bulgaria. Nothing has changed since then.
Reports at the time said we’d need five years to negotiate out. And all the economists predicted the clust fuck we have now. People still voted for it.
All the remain economists predicted a deep and immediate recession if we voted Leave.....which didn't happen and the economy continued to grow after we voted Leave.
You are actually smart enough to know this related to if we leave - stop grasping at straws
No you're either misinformed or you're deliberately trying to mislead other people. The actual wording of the Treasury was there would be a deep and immediate recession if the country voted Leave.
That has now been completely debunked/proved false and no recession ever materialised.
Tell that to the Honda and Nissan workers...
Honda who's chief executive said the decision to close the Swindon plant had nothing to do with Brexit.
As for Nissan factory in Sunderland, none of them have lost their jobs. "Of course he said it had nothing to do with Brexit, they don’t want to get involved in the politics of Brexit. Nissan have move production of the new X Trail away from the UK, stopped production of the Infinity range and are now reducing production of Qashqai and Leaf - all of these willlead to job losses. | |||
| |||
