FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > so how are remain mp,s going to stop brexit now?
so how are remain mp,s going to stop brexit now?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know. But its a slight worry to me that even with three months lead time, it seems our Hop are powerless to stop an outcome the majority of MPs are against, and for which there is no clear mandate. (the will of the people is to have Brexit. We elect our MP's to choose the best way how to) I wonder how this would be reported if the EU had run down the clock to bypass the MEP's. All in all, it doesn't feel like this is democracy and sovereignty in action. " Just because mps cant do their job does not mean the will of the people should be ignored though.Democracy is only threatened by the 80% of mps who stood on a mandate to carry out the referendum.But unless they start talking i see a no deal inevitable now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see Dominic Greive,s plan has been shot down anyone got any idea how it is going to be stopped now." I didn't see how it could be stopped to start with nor would I want it to be stopped   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see Dominic Greive,s plan has been shot down anyone got any idea how it is going to be stopped now." My guess is they would simply bring down the government using a vote of no confidence if they tried to push through a no deal, you could argue that is part of the mandate as the public didn't vote yes or no on a no deal, no deal wasn't even mentioned til well after the referendum . Of course they could use the nuclear option of revoking a50, but i doubt many mps will want that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know. But its a slight worry to me that even with three months lead time, it seems our Hop are powerless to stop an outcome the majority of MPs are against, and for which there is no clear mandate. (the will of the people is to have Brexit. We elect our MP's to choose the best way how to) I wonder how this would be reported if the EU had run down the clock to bypass the MEP's. All in all, it doesn't feel like this is democracy and sovereignty in action. Just because mps cant do their job does not mean the will of the people should be ignored though.Democracy is only threatened by the 80% of mps who stood on a mandate to carry out the referendum.But unless they start talking i see a no deal inevitable now." No one stood on a mandate of no deal. Imo those who are forcing this through are as equally as culpable as not standing on their manifesto. Worse maybe, they are standing on a position they chose not to discuss during the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ashcroft poll published in Holyrood magazine puts support for Scottish independence at 52%. Pandora's box is the Brexiteers' gift to the nation. " Brexit or no Brexit, the SNP would continue to fervently pursue their raison d'être | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
The further England lurches to the right, the higher the Yes needle will rise.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world." This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. This "My concern isn't the leave side. Its the leave with no deal. Does the nation favour this? Unclear. It wasnt talked about in the referendum. It wasn't really talked about in the GE. No one had it in their manifesto. Does the government favour this? Well, May brought back a deal she saw as being better than no deal. I didnt get the impression Boris favoured no deal. No deal was the backstop no one thought we would need. It was going to be an easy deal. No deal is one in a million. Now it is being forced through not by democracy but because of holidays and other politicianing tricks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. This
My concern isn't the leave side. Its the leave with no deal.
Does the nation favour this? Unclear. It wasnt talked about in the referendum. It wasn't really talked about in the GE. No one had it in their manifesto.
Does the government favour this? Well, May brought back a deal she saw as being better than no deal. I didnt get the impression Boris favoured no deal.
No deal was the backstop no one thought we would need. It was going to be an easy deal. No deal is one in a million. Now it is being forced through not by democracy but because of holidays and other politicianing tricks.
"It was always going to be a no deal scenario, why would the EU allow one of it's nuclear powers and largest contributors to just walk away? They were always going to play hard ball, at the end of the day it's a negotiation and we have to prepared to walk away from the table with no deal or we're just signing a blank cheque. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. This
My concern isn't the leave side. Its the leave with no deal.
Does the nation favour this? Unclear. It wasnt talked about in the referendum. It wasn't really talked about in the GE. No one had it in their manifesto.
Does the government favour this? Well, May brought back a deal she saw as being better than no deal. I didnt get the impression Boris favoured no deal.
No deal was the backstop no one thought we would need. It was going to be an easy deal. No deal is one in a million. Now it is being forced through not by democracy but because of holidays and other politicianing tricks.
It was always going to be a no deal scenario, why would the EU allow one of it's nuclear powers and largest contributors to just walk away? They were always going to play hard ball, at the end of the day it's a negotiation and we have to prepared to walk away from the table with no deal or we're just signing a blank cheque."Yet again this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I voted leave and would again , but there will be a deal of some sort, as nobody wants stale mate, will go right to the edge so just sit back, eat some pop corn, relax. "Even if there is no deal we'll continue on trading the same as before, we buy too many EU products to be told our money is no good. It's all bluster over nothing, yours right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Even if there is no deal we'll continue on trading the same as before, we buy too many EU products to be told our money is no good. It's all bluster over nothing, yours right." There will be trade, sure, but if you believe nothing will change then you do not understand Brexit. Those who thought they were getting rid of bureaucracy are about to bring a deluge onto us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Even if there is no deal we'll continue on trading the same as before, we buy too many EU products to be told our money is no good. It's all bluster over nothing, yours right. There will be trade, sure, but if you believe nothing will change then you do not understand Brexit. Those who thought they were getting rid of bureaucracy are about to bring a deluge onto us. " There's one sure fire way to end a good natured discussion, and that's to accuse people that they don't understand the issue because they disagree with your point of view. Bureaucracy is what governments are made of, it's always going to be on the increase everywhere. I voted leave because I believe the EU doesn't serve the British people at all. What do you expect will change so radically that Brexit frightens you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". " Ok. Well seeing as Scotland simply cannot afford independence at all, neither can Wales and the Nothern Irish have the most to gain from Brexit, none of that will ever happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". " Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok. Well seeing as Scotland simply cannot afford independence at all, neither can Wales and the Nothern Irish have the most to gain from Brexit, none of that will ever happen." Lolol I'm afraid Brexit destroys your theory that voters heed economic arguments when it comes to nationalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok. Well seeing as Scotland simply cannot afford independence at all, neither can Wales and the Nothern Irish have the most to gain from Brexit, none of that will ever happen. Lolol I'm afraid Brexit destroys your theory that voters heed economic arguments when it comes to nationalism. " ~ 1000 years of Scottish sabre rattling and demanding independence and it's just around the corner? Why not go whole hog and turn Baptist, I'm sure I heard someome say Jesus is just around the corner too, maybe they can share a taxi and hurry this whole affair along. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ?" It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. " Was only asking because it seems strange to me that someone so committed to independence would choose to pay taxes to their "oppressors" when they could be paying tax to the country they obviously love.But you are not alone as it seems 750,000 people born in scotland currently live in England which is quiet a large % out of 5.3 million. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Was only asking because it seems strange to me that someone so committed to independence would choose to pay taxes to their "oppressors" when they could be paying tax to the country they obviously love.But you are not alone as it seems 750,000 people born in scotland currently live in England which is quiet a large % out of 5.3 million." I don't feel oppressed. My taxes are collected by the UK Treasury in the first instance, irrespective of where I live. It does not matter where you live in the UK - all tax is collected by the UK Treasury in the first instance. A similar number of people have gone in the opposite direction from England and settled in Scotland. It's what populations do - migrate. The barriers to migration were removed by the Act of Union. Unfortunately, the UK is about to re-erect the barriers to migration outside the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems a little disingenuous to push unity with Europe with one hand and the independence of you own nation with the other." Having your cake and eating it?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Was only asking because it seems strange to me that someone so committed to independence would choose to pay taxes to their "oppressors" when they could be paying tax to the country they obviously love.But you are not alone as it seems 750,000 people born in scotland currently live in England which is quiet a large % out of 5.3 million. I don't feel oppressed. My taxes are collected by the UK Treasury in the first instance, irrespective of where I live. It does not matter where you live in the UK - all tax is collected by the UK Treasury in the first instance. A similar number of people have gone in the opposite direction from England and settled in Scotland. It's what populations do - migrate. The barriers to migration were removed by the Act of Union. Unfortunately, the UK is about to re-erect the barriers to migration outside the UK. " The tax collected in scotland might be by the uk treasury but that tax is paid direct to scotland and why they raised the tax rate,. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems a little disingenuous to push unity with Europe with one hand and the independence of you own nation with the other." I couldn't really care how it looks to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. This
My concern isn't the leave side. Its the leave with no deal.
Does the nation favour this? Unclear. It wasnt talked about in the referendum. It wasn't really talked about in the GE. No one had it in their manifesto.
Does the government favour this? Well, May brought back a deal she saw as being better than no deal. I didnt get the impression Boris favoured no deal.
No deal was the backstop no one thought we would need. It was going to be an easy deal. No deal is one in a million. Now it is being forced through not by democracy but because of holidays and other politicianing tricks.
It was always going to be a no deal scenario, why would the EU allow one of it's nuclear powers and largest contributors to just walk away? They were always going to play hard ball, at the end of the day it's a negotiation and we have to prepared to walk away from the table with no deal or we're just signing a blank cheque.
Yet again this "Having no deal on the table may be needed to get the best deal. But it was never an option the leave side talked through seriously with the electorate. Even now it tends to be mitigated with comments it won't be fully hard because we will get a fudge via article 24 or security concerns. Id support leaving with a deal as being democratically correct. A mandate less no deal via a route which leaves our MPs powerless feels wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The tax collected in scotland might be by the uk treasury but that tax is paid direct to scotland and why they raised the tax rate,." Yes, the rates of tax in Scotland are different from the rest of the UK. There are six bands, I believe. If you earn less than the average, you pay less than the UK rate. If you earn more than the average, you pay more than the UK rate. But the money is all collected by the UK Treasury in the first instance. A Parliament that spends money without being accountable to its electorate for raising it was always a flawed idea. Devolution of income tax rates went some way to addressing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. " Does Scotland meet the criteria to qualify for E.U membership as an independent country? Would they be prepared to sign into the euro as currency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Does Scotland meet the criteria to qualify for E.U membership as an independent country? Would they be prepared to sign into the euro as currency?" It does, because its structures are all compliant with EU Treaty requirements (as is the rest of the UK). Separation of state and judiciary, democratic elections, human rights etc. On the currency, I believe it is a condition to sign up in principle. But in reality the conversion to the Euro can take decades to achieve. How quickly or slowly Scotland's ascension to the EU might take probably will have as much to do with the health of political relations between the rump state of the UK and the EU. A bellicose England (and Wales), or one where hostility to EU citizens is a problem . . . the EU will see political mileage in accelerating the process of weakening the UK. Similarly, with the re-unification of Ireland. That said, with or without the EU, the currency probably is the biggest single weakness the Nats need to address to give people confidence to vote Yes in sufficient numbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ashcroft poll published in Holyrood magazine puts support for Scottish independence at 52%. Pandora's box is the Brexiteers' gift to the nation. " You have lost the argument so you change the subject | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. Does Scotland meet the criteria to qualify for E.U membership as an independent country? Would they be prepared to sign into the euro as currency?" No they could not rejoin for at least 5 years and then thedy would have to qualify,as a bankrupt nation they would not be allowed in.Of course selsish Sturgeon does not tell people this.She wants independence at any price and she also knows that the English would prop them up anyway.We can be very stupid at times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You have lost the argument so you change the subject" I'd say the integrity of the United Kingdom is integral to the Brexit debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You have lost the argument so you change the subject I'd say the integrity of the United Kingdom is integral to the Brexit debate. " The money is in Westminster, as is the future of the union, the way it's always been. Brexit changes nothing, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain in the UK because they can't afford to go it alone. It's funny you mention nationalism in refernce to 'leave' voters when you're the only one espousing nationalist views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world." We'll see. Just like we did on March. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March." Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49004486 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it." A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter." Yup. Sadly many can't read past a headline, especially when it says what they want to believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49004486" The holy grail of all things factual and unbiased | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was always going to be a no deal scenario, why would the EU allow one of it's nuclear powers and largest contributors to just walk away? They were always going to play hard ball, at the end of the day it's a negotiation and we have to prepared to walk away from the table with no deal or we're just signing a blank cheque." I don't think it was always destined to be a no deal at all. I just think May made a total hash of everything from the get go. I didn't believe it was going to be the easiest deal in history, nor did I believe we held all the cards like many did but our strategy from the outset was diabolical which has ultimately led us to this brink that we need to hold our nerve one way or another If the EU will not negotiate a new treaty then we have to make the decision to stay in the EU or walk with no deal, no more extensions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I voted leave and would again , but there will be a deal of some sort, as nobody wants stale mate, will go right to the edge so just sit back, eat some pop corn, relax.
Even if there is no deal we'll continue on trading the same as before, we buy too many EU products to be told our money is no good. It's all bluster over nothing, yours right."If there is no deal then we will not "continue trading the same" if we have no trade agreements, we will be trading on WTO rules which are on a lot worse terms than the free trade agreements we currently have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter." Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter. Yup. Sadly many can't read past a headline, especially when it says what they want to believe." Seems you have fallen foul of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter. Yup. Sadly many can't read past a headline, especially when it says what they want to believe.Seems you have fallen foul of that. "Did you read the article. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do." Parliament can do whatever the f*ck it likes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. " I think there should be a referendum on Scottish independence and a reunification one for Ireland & Northern Ireland. England should have one too and the Welsh, all voting on the same day, get it all over and done with in one go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do." You are wrong. Perhaps you should read (or at least a summary of) The Fixed Term Parliament Act. Something that you clearly haven’t and nor had Dominic Cummings which is where I am presuming you have got your ideas from. If a no confidence vote is passed then the PM and the Govt are helpless and without authority. The PM has no right to call an election, it is the duty of Parliament to form a Government or by default, an election will happen. As an aside... you must be dreaming if you think that any Prime Minister, let alone a Conservative Prime Minister would commit the country to a monumental act of self harm the like of which is being proposed. This is simply Boris Johnson painting himself as the people’s Prime Minister who will be crusading on behalf of his heroic citizens in the face of opposition from Parliament and the EU. Some people are evidently falling for the masquerade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do. You are wrong. Perhaps you should read (or at least a summary of) The Fixed Term Parliament Act. Something that you clearly haven’t and nor had Dominic Cummings which is where I am presuming you have got your ideas from. If a no confidence vote is passed then the PM and the Govt are helpless and without authority. The PM has no right to call an election, it is the duty of Parliament to form a Government or by default, an election will happen. As an aside... you must be dreaming if you think that any Prime Minister, let alone a Conservative Prime Minister would commit the country to a monumental act of self harm the like of which is being proposed. This is simply Boris Johnson painting himself as the people’s Prime Minister who will be crusading on behalf of his heroic citizens in the face of opposition from Parliament and the EU. Some people are evidently falling for the masquerade." Exactly by default an election is called and the pm sets the date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was always going to be a no deal scenario, why would the EU allow one of it's nuclear powers and largest contributors to just walk away? They were always going to play hard ball, at the end of the day it's a negotiation and we have to prepared to walk away from the table with no deal or we're just signing a blank cheque. I don't think it was always destined to be a no deal at all. I just think May made a total hash of everything from the get go. I didn't believe it was going to be the easiest deal in history, nor did I believe we held all the cards like many did but our strategy from the outset was diabolical which has ultimately led us to this brink that we need to hold our nerve one way or another If the EU will not negotiate a new treaty then we have to make the decision to stay in the EU or walk with no deal, no more extensions. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do." see costa.. you know this is not true... as you have been told on countless occasions how it can be done be me and various people but it seems to go in one ear and out the other... so lets try it one more time... summer recess ends first week of sept (they are in session as of week commencing 2nd sept) so... week they come back, vote of no confidence, if that goes thru then they have 14 days to form a new govt. if that doesnt happen a general election would be called... then they have 35 days (by law) to campaign which would then by a general election on Thursday 24th october.... if you are talking about the story in the times where it talks about johnson refusing to resign to drag it out.... there are 2 problems... 1) you then drag the queen into the middle of what is a political arguement as any extension to the resignation process would need her approval 2) you forget that he might not resign, but if there are enough no hard deal tory mp's to cross the floor and you could could see a short term "national unity" (not with corbyn in charge) government command a majority in the house of commons, long enough to get an extention for a then general election or 2nd referendum.... remember the majority at the moment is 1..... If johnson then refused to go... you would see one hell of a fight going thru the courts..... it would be a defacto coup and bearing in mind this government doesn't seem to be very good at winning constitutional arguements at the supreme court... i wouldn't fancy their chances... could you imagine the people who have been telling you that it was all about "taking about control" in effect defying the will of parliament...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do. see costa.. you know this is not true... as you have been told on countless occasions how it can be done be me and various people but it seems to go in one ear and out the other... so lets try it one more time... summer recess ends first week of sept (they are in session as of week commencing 2nd sept) so... week they come back, vote of no confidence, if that goes thru then they have 14 days to form a new govt. if that doesnt happen a general election would be called... then they have 35 days (by law) to campaign which would then by a general election on Thursday 24th october.... if you are talking about the story in the times where it talks about johnson refusing to resign to drag it out.... there are 2 problems... 1) you then drag the queen into the middle of what is a political arguement as any extension to the resignation process would need her approval 2) you forget that he might not resign, but if there are enough no hard deal tory mp's to cross the floor and you could could see a short term "national unity" (not with corbyn in charge) government command a majority in the house of commons, long enough to get an extention for a then general election or 2nd referendum.... remember the majority at the moment is 1..... If johnson then refused to go... you would see one hell of a fight going thru the courts..... it would be a defacto coup and bearing in mind this government doesn't seem to be very good at winning constitutional arguements at the supreme court... i wouldn't fancy their chances... could you imagine the people who have been telling you that it was all about "taking about control" in effect defying the will of parliament......" Some tories may vote for a no confidence vote but you are also forgetting that a number of labour mps in leave constituencies have already said they would not vote with the whip as they know they are going to lose their seats if that happens.To form an alternative government they need to agree that one commands the house if no the pm stays on they then try to find someone that does if not a GE.Its only certain that a no confidence vote is debated if the leader of the opposition calls it then time is found.Does corbyn want a GE now after the recent results and knowing that he personally wants to leave (after all he has opposed the eu all his life)but cant come out and say it as would lose to many voters.You are clutching at straws mate with your one week window and you know it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do. see costa.. you know this is not true... as you have been told on countless occasions how it can be done be me and various people but it seems to go in one ear and out the other... so lets try it one more time... summer recess ends first week of sept (they are in session as of week commencing 2nd sept) so... week they come back, vote of no confidence, if that goes thru then they have 14 days to form a new govt. if that doesnt happen a general election would be called... then they have 35 days (by law) to campaign which would then by a general election on Thursday 24th october.... if you are talking about the story in the times where it talks about johnson refusing to resign to drag it out.... there are 2 problems... 1) you then drag the queen into the middle of what is a political arguement as any extension to the resignation process would need her approval 2) you forget that he might not resign, but if there are enough no hard deal tory mp's to cross the floor and you could could see a short term "national unity" (not with corbyn in charge) government command a majority in the house of commons, long enough to get an extention for a then general election or 2nd referendum.... remember the majority at the moment is 1..... If johnson then refused to go... you would see one hell of a fight going thru the courts..... it would be a defacto coup and bearing in mind this government doesn't seem to be very good at winning constitutional arguements at the supreme court... i wouldn't fancy their chances... could you imagine the people who have been telling you that it was all about "taking about control" in effect defying the will of parliament......Some tories may vote for a no confidence vote but you are also forgetting that a number of labour mps in leave constituencies have already said they would not vote with the whip as they know they are going to lose their seats if that happens.To form an alternative government they need to agree that one commands the house if no the pm stays on they then try to find someone that does if not a GE.Its only certain that a no confidence vote is debated if the leader of the opposition calls it then time is found.Does corbyn want a GE now after the recent results and knowing that he personally wants to leave (after all he has opposed the eu all his life)but cant come out and say it as would lose to many voters.You are clutching at straws mate with your one week window and you know it. "So, now you're saying it CAN happen but it won't. Make your mind up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now "Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
"https://simpleclockreset.co.uk/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
https://simpleclockreset.co.uk/
" doesn’t work
“ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT”
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
https://simpleclockreset.co.uk/
doesn’t work
“ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT”
"The fact you tried made it worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
https://simpleclockreset.co.uk/
doesn’t work
“ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT”
The fact you tried made it worth it."Worth what ?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
https://simpleclockreset.co.uk/
doesn’t work
“ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT”
The fact you tried made it worth it.
Worth what ?
"Never mind pumpkin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
https://simpleclockreset.co.uk/
doesn’t work
“ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT”
The fact you tried made it worth it.
Worth what ?
Never mind pumpkin "I can tell you’re not a completer finisher
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.ft.com/content/feeed45c-b761-11e9-8a88-aa6628ac896c" Needs an Ft.com subscription  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guess it's just a waiting game for now
Tick tock, tick tock..... https://daystobrexit.co.uk/
"Now that's sad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time has effectively run out to delay our departure. Parliament isn't sitting until into September. A government can hang on for 2 weeks after a successful no confidence vote. An election campaign lasts 4 weeks or so.....the Government can play politics here and set it for after 3tst October. The period of Purdah sees no policy legislation introduced. The current situation is that Parliament has invoked s.50 which means no changes to laws on the books,so we are leaving. " The Speaker may allow "something" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. Does Scotland meet the criteria to qualify for E.U membership as an independent country? Would they be prepared to sign into the euro as currency?No they could not rejoin for at least 5 years and then thedy would have to qualify,as a bankrupt nation they would not be allowed in.Of course selsish Sturgeon does not tell people this.She wants independence at any price and she also knows that the English would prop them up anyway.We can be very stupid at times." Nonsense. Where did you get 5 years from? Technically, Scotland cold negotiate entry before leaving the UK. Scotland's position is unique. Completely different to any other country that has ever joined the EU. Scotland in the UK puts rUK in a weaker position with any trade talks with the EU. Scotland is also capable of attracting many English remainers to boost investment and grow the economy. You really can't say what will happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. Does Scotland meet the criteria to qualify for E.U membership as an independent country? Would they be prepared to sign into the euro as currency?No they could not rejoin for at least 5 years and then thedy would have to qualify,as a bankrupt nation they would not be allowed in.Of course selsish Sturgeon does not tell people this.She wants independence at any price and she also knows that the English would prop them up anyway.We can be very stupid at times. Nonsense. Where did you get 5 years from? Technically, Scotland cold negotiate entry before leaving the UK. Scotland's position is unique. Completely different to any other country that has ever joined the EU. Scotland in the UK puts rUK in a weaker position with any trade talks with the EU. Scotland is also capable of attracting many English remainers to boost investment and grow the economy. You really can't say what will happen." I wonder if Scott's would be happy accepting the Euro as their currency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't frighten me - I am looking forward to the disintegration of the United Kingdom and nation states "taking back control". Will you still live in England if scotland get indi ? It's not a question I have considered. I am about to lose my rights as an EU citizen. My Irish heritage is too distant to qualify for an Irish passport. My place of birth is in Scotland. The departure of Scotland from the UK and its ascension to the EU appears to me to be the likeliest route to regain my rights of EU citizenship. Does Scotland meet the criteria to qualify for E.U membership as an independent country? Would they be prepared to sign into the euro as currency?No they could not rejoin for at least 5 years and then thedy would have to qualify,as a bankrupt nation they would not be allowed in.Of course selsish Sturgeon does not tell people this.She wants independence at any price and she also knows that the English would prop them up anyway.We can be very stupid at times. Nonsense. Where did you get 5 years from? Technically, Scotland cold negotiate entry before leaving the UK. Scotland's position is unique. Completely different to any other country that has ever joined the EU. Scotland in the UK puts rUK in a weaker position with any trade talks with the EU. Scotland is also capable of attracting many English remainers to boost investment and grow the economy. You really can't say what will happen. I wonder if Scott's would be happy accepting the Euro as their currency? " Negotiate an opt out. Its been done before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder if Scott's would be happy accepting the Euro as their currency? " Why wouldn’t they? Two things... 1) In light of the anger and resentment felt towards Westminster, they may well see that adopting the Euro instead of retaining (a form of) GBP is a final closure on their time under English jurisdiction. 2) why is there a fear of the Euro? Ireland manages perfectly well with it, as does France, Germany and other Northern European countries. Scotland is more like Ireland than Greece, Italy or Spain and so should have no problems at all benefitting from the adoption of the Euro. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time has effectively run out to delay our departure. Parliament isn't sitting until into September. A government can hang on for 2 weeks after a successful no confidence vote. An election campaign lasts 4 weeks or so.....the Government can play politics here and set it for after 3tst October. The period of Purdah sees no policy legislation introduced. The current situation is that Parliament has invoked s.50 which means no changes to laws on the books,so we are leaving. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe Ireland continue to use the £ for 30-odd years after independence before establishing its own currency. I think the SNP recently formed a commission to examine the currency options. There was a suggestion of establishing a new currency, but I do not know if that has yet become policy. Whatever, it is one of the key questions they need to answer before any new referendum. " Ireland didnt have the £ it had the punt and was not backed by the bank of england. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of a no confidence motion by Parliament, it is followed by a 14-day period to see if anyone else can form a government. An anti-No Deal coalition, led by a backbencher, could muster enough votes to form a temporary administration with the sole purpose of delaying or revoking Article 50. if no alternative administration can be formed in those 14 days, a General Election must be held.. The dissolution of Parliament in the run-up to October 31 would make this the clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks, since it would prevent the passage of new legislation and regulation (including Direct Rule) that needs to be in place for Nov 1. " Technically that's correct. However, the PM doesn't have to resign immediately they lose a vote of No Confidence and only the PM can set a date for a GE. Therefore he could sit out the 14 day period, then tell the Queen of the GE date. That would take us well beyond 31st October. I believe the Speaker is well aware of this, and given the constitutional crisis that could unfold, will intervene to stop it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do. see costa.. you know this is not true... as you have been told on countless occasions how it can be done be me and various people but it seems to go in one ear and out the other... so lets try it one more time... summer recess ends first week of sept (they are in session as of week commencing 2nd sept) so... week they come back, vote of no confidence, if that goes thru then they have 14 days to form a new govt. if that doesnt happen a general election would be called... then they have 35 days (by law) to campaign which would then by a general election on Thursday 24th october.... if you are talking about the story in the times where it talks about johnson refusing to resign to drag it out.... there are 2 problems... 1) you then drag the queen into the middle of what is a political arguement as any extension to the resignation process would need her approval 2) you forget that he might not resign, but if there are enough no hard deal tory mp's to cross the floor and you could could see a short term "national unity" (not with corbyn in charge) government command a majority in the house of commons, long enough to get an extention for a then general election or 2nd referendum.... remember the majority at the moment is 1..... If johnson then refused to go... you would see one hell of a fight going thru the courts..... it would be a defacto coup and bearing in mind this government doesn't seem to be very good at winning constitutional arguements at the supreme court... i wouldn't fancy their chances... could you imagine the people who have been telling you that it was all about "taking about control" in effect defying the will of parliament......" Boris could refuse to resign and call a people v parliament election in which case he can set the date after the 31st.As for a government to command a majority that wont happen they all have their own agenda and will never agree in 14 days. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After its independence in 1922, Ireland continued to use the £. " Indeed. They changed in 1928 but both currencies were closely tied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simply put they can't; the nation favours leave, the government favours leave and we've already begun the process of leaving. All these people who think it can be stopped at this stage aren't living in the real world. We'll see. Just like we did on March.Thats not really telling us how they can achieve it is it. A vote of no confidence in the Govt will give Parliament 14 days to find and form a new Government. One more defection from the Conservatives and they are in a minority. An opposition coalition could quite easily be formed thereafter.Im afraid that wont work but good try,If they tried that it needs the pm to resign they cannot force him.He would call a general election then parliament is shut down and he sets the date we are out by law on the 31st so all he has to do is have it after that date or even on that date as its a thursday and he has fulfilled his promise.There is nothing they can do. see costa.. you know this is not true... as you have been told on countless occasions how it can be done be me and various people but it seems to go in one ear and out the other... so lets try it one more time... summer recess ends first week of sept (they are in session as of week commencing 2nd sept) so... week they come back, vote of no confidence, if that goes thru then they have 14 days to form a new govt. if that doesnt happen a general election would be called... then they have 35 days (by law) to campaign which would then by a general election on Thursday 24th october.... if you are talking about the story in the times where it talks about johnson refusing to resign to drag it out.... there are 2 problems... 1) you then drag the queen into the middle of what is a political arguement as any extension to the resignation process would need her approval 2) you forget that he might not resign, but if there are enough no hard deal tory mp's to cross the floor and you could could see a short term "national unity" (not with corbyn in charge) government command a majority in the house of commons, long enough to get an extention for a then general election or 2nd referendum.... remember the majority at the moment is 1..... If johnson then refused to go... you would see one hell of a fight going thru the courts..... it would be a defacto coup and bearing in mind this government doesn't seem to be very good at winning constitutional arguements at the supreme court... i wouldn't fancy their chances... could you imagine the people who have been telling you that it was all about "taking about control" in effect defying the will of parliament......Boris could refuse to resign and call a people v parliament election in which case he can set the date after the 31st.As for a government to command a majority that wont happen they all have their own agenda and will never agree in 14 days. " He clearly has got you - hook, line and sinker. Just how powerful these Politicians must feel when they can so easily manipulate people with simple words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've no clue but the archaic vote result from 2016 reflects an outdated position and one where no deal departure wasn't voted for. Article 50 should be revoked, so that the UK can pursue what's wanted today, where either a managed transitional departure is negotiated and agreed or the UK remains a member, based on 2019s needs, changed public experience and understanding. It's also clear that the UK would gain from a 2 year negotiating period, if Article 50 was resubmitted, based on the inept qualities of the extreme right wingers shouting loudest, whilst shuffling the Titanic's deck chairs, trying to make a few millionaires comfortable post crash, as the gullible and the rest who are bled dry, gulp some sovereignty as consciousness fades" Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've no clue but the archaic vote result from 2016 reflects an outdated position and one where no deal departure wasn't voted for. Article 50 should be revoked, so that the UK can pursue what's wanted today, where either a managed transitional departure is negotiated and agreed or the UK remains a member, based on 2019s needs, changed public experience and understanding. It's also clear that the UK would gain from a 2 year negotiating period, if Article 50 was resubmitted, based on the inept qualities of the extreme right wingers shouting loudest, whilst shuffling the Titanic's deck chairs, trying to make a few millionaires comfortable post crash, as the gullible and the rest who are bled dry, gulp some sovereignty as consciousness fadesMissing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems." That is incorrect, according to the FT amongst others. A50 can be revoked then resubmitted. A50 can not be unilaterally revoked so would need the eu to agree to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've no clue but the archaic vote result from 2016 reflects an outdated position and one where no deal departure wasn't voted for. Article 50 should be revoked, so that the UK can pursue what's wanted today, where either a managed transitional departure is negotiated and agreed or the UK remains a member, based on 2019s needs, changed public experience and understanding. It's also clear that the UK would gain from a 2 year negotiating period, if Article 50 was resubmitted, based on the inept qualities of the extreme right wingers shouting loudest, whilst shuffling the Titanic's deck chairs, trying to make a few millionaires comfortable post crash, as the gullible and the rest who are bled dry, gulp some sovereignty as consciousness fadesMissing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. That is incorrect, according to the FT amongst others. A50 can be revoked then resubmitted. A50 can not be unilaterally revoked so would need the eu to agree to it." A revocation for the purpose of tactical negotiation would not satisfy the test and also breach the principle of good faith in the treaties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? ". Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is incorrect, according to the FT amongst others. A50 can be revoked then resubmitted. A50 can not be unilaterally revoked so would need the eu to agree to it." If look back at the ruling by the Court of Justice in December, you'll see that a state can revoke Article 50 unilaterally and its terms of membership stay unchanged. The court also ruled that a state cannot revoke Article 50 as a delaying tactic or a negotiating tactic. It must be done in good faith, without qualification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. " I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Even if there is no deal we'll continue on trading the same as before, we buy too many EU products to be told our money is no good. It's all bluster over nothing, yours right. There will be trade, sure, but if you believe nothing will change then you do not understand Brexit. Those who thought they were getting rid of bureaucracy are about to bring a deluge onto us. " This fact in quadruplicate x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. " Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?."This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make. No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country. Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real. "Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
". Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades. The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries. In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. " . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The key difference between the two is the UK policy was to remain and the Scottish policy is to leave. One is swimming against the tide. " . All that shows is both parliaments are trying to push through their own political agenda despite both sets of citizens voting the opposite way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.ft.com/content/feeed45c-b761-11e9-8a88-aa6628ac896c Needs an Ft.com subscription "I think I may have a limited number of articles per week to read. You just need to sign up I think. Apologies. Guardian says something similar but with more unnecessary drama: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/06/mps-thwart-boris-johnson-no-deal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
.
Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades.
The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries.
In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!."Name five EU decisions that the majority of the UK population really doesn't like rather than just has a tut about. In 40 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
.
Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades.
The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries.
In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!."Let's just assume you're correct and the government is pro EU (it's not, it's clearly divided). Then what's the problem? If the UK MEPs agree with the EU and we vote in favour of the vast majority, then vote for a different MEP. And if the UK government is so poor at making choices, why do you want to hand them more power, what makes you think there is any good in it for the UK? You don't need to find me dozens, but if you could find me one of the EU regulations that you don't agree with that the UK voted against. That would be good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
.
Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades.
The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries.
In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!.
Let's just assume you're correct and the government is pro EU (it's not, it's clearly divided). Then what's the problem? If the UK MEPs agree with the EU and we vote in favour of the vast majority, then vote for a different MEP. And if the UK government is so poor at making choices, why do you want to hand them more power, what makes you think there is any good in it for the UK?
You don't need to find me dozens, but if you could find me one of the EU regulations that you don't agree with that the UK voted against. That would be good.
". Well it's divided 75/35 Pro EU so yes it's Pro EU, the Tory government ran on a firm remain vote, no UK government for forty years has been anything but Pro EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won." The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan" . No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
.
Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades.
The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries.
In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!.
Let's just assume you're correct and the government is pro EU (it's not, it's clearly divided). Then what's the problem? If the UK MEPs agree with the EU and we vote in favour of the vast majority, then vote for a different MEP. And if the UK government is so poor at making choices, why do you want to hand them more power, what makes you think there is any good in it for the UK?
You don't need to find me dozens, but if you could find me one of the EU regulations that you don't agree with that the UK voted against. That would be good.
.
Well it's divided 75/35 Pro EU so yes it's Pro EU, the Tory government ran on a firm remain vote, no UK government for forty years has been anything but Pro EU."What about the main point here. Any EU regulations that you don't like that the UK voted against? If you can do it without googling. Then fair play to you. But the main point is that this line about "taking control back", people who use this have no clue what this means or why it would be better for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
.
Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades.
The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries.
In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!.
Let's just assume you're correct and the government is pro EU (it's not, it's clearly divided). Then what's the problem? If the UK MEPs agree with the EU and we vote in favour of the vast majority, then vote for a different MEP. And if the UK government is so poor at making choices, why do you want to hand them more power, what makes you think there is any good in it for the UK?
You don't need to find me dozens, but if you could find me one of the EU regulations that you don't agree with that the UK voted against. That would be good.
.
Well it's divided 75/35 Pro EU so yes it's Pro EU, the Tory government ran on a firm remain vote, no UK government for forty years has been anything but Pro EU.
What about the main point here. Any EU regulations that you don't like that the UK voted against?
If you can do it without googling. Then fair play to you. But the main point is that this line about "taking control back", people who use this have no clue what this means or why it would be better for us. ". Well I half agree, our first point of taking back control starts in Westminster who for forty years have voted and implemented stuff the majority don't want, they voted it in at EU level because Westminster like I said has been Pro EU for decades. I mean so you really think Maastricht would have passed a referendum in 96? Or whenever it was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder if Scott's would be happy accepting the Euro as their currency? Negotiate an opt out. Its been done before." We opted out while the Euro was being created but the EU's own perquisites for joining now is adopting the Euro. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder if Scott's would be happy accepting the Euro as their currency? Why wouldn’t they? Two things... 1) In light of the anger and resentment felt towards Westminster, they may well see that adopting the Euro instead of retaining (a form of) GBP is a final closure on their time under English jurisdiction. 2) why is there a fear of the Euro? Ireland manages perfectly well with it, as does France, Germany and other Northern European countries. Scotland is more like Ireland than Greece, Italy or Spain and so should have no problems at all benefitting from the adoption of the Euro." I never said there was anything to fear about the Euro. The point I was making was for all intents and purposes the Pound is the national currency for Scotland and would the population be happy loosing the Scottish Pound. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is incorrect, according to the FT amongst others. A50 can be revoked then resubmitted. A50 can not be unilaterally revoked so would need the eu to agree to it." Wrong lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a decision in principle. Look at the record. Croatia signed up decades ago as a condition of membership. Still using the Kuna. The EU does not push hard for additional adoptions. Its priority is keeping the ones already using it in stability. Scotland would be the same. Sign up in principle and carry on as you are. That's what the Nats need to be clear about - the currency between leaving the UK and the currency between the € at some unknown time in the future." . Scotland's budget deficit has been over the EUs allowed limit, there'd have to work hard on reducing it, Germany really insisted on there being a budget deficit agreement to keep inflation at bay but that only works if your a net exporter or you have very very limited public spending, Scotland has neither of those requirements so would be far better off using they're own currency. Using the euro would leave them no better than Greece | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder if Scott's would be happy accepting the Euro as their currency? Why wouldn’t they? Two things... 1) In light of the anger and resentment felt towards Westminster, they may well see that adopting the Euro instead of retaining (a form of) GBP is a final closure on their time under English jurisdiction. 2) why is there a fear of the Euro? Ireland manages perfectly well with it, as does France, Germany and other Northern European countries. Scotland is more like Ireland than Greece, Italy or Spain and so should have no problems at all benefitting from the adoption of the Euro. I never said there was anything to fear about the Euro. The point I was making was for all intents and purposes the Pound is the national currency for Scotland and would the population be happy loosing the Scottish Pound. " I wonder if there is any polling on this point, have the Scottish govt asked the question? regardless of Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or English... we are very sentimental/protective of our pound. Would that be a deal breaker for IndeRef2... if we leave we adopt the Euro... I wonder if that simple thing would focus/change minds.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a decision in principle. Look at the record. Croatia signed up decades ago as a condition of membership. Still using the Kuna. The EU does not push hard for additional adoptions. Its priority is keeping the ones already using it in stability. Scotland would be the same. Sign up in principle and carry on as you are. That's what the Nats need to be clear about - the currency between leaving the UK and the currency between the € at some unknown time in the future." . The reason Croatia hasn't used the euro is exactly what I stated above, they are now moving to erm membership this year after reducing there budget deficit. I'm not sure you could get massive cuts in public spending from the Scottish, there a bit too left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've no clue but the archaic vote result from 2016 reflects an outdated position and one where no deal departure wasn't voted for. Article 50 should be revoked, so that the UK can pursue what's wanted today, where either a managed transitional departure is negotiated and agreed or the UK remains a member, based on 2019s needs, changed public experience and understanding. It's also clear that the UK would gain from a 2 year negotiating period, if Article 50 was resubmitted, based on the inept qualities of the extreme right wingers shouting loudest, whilst shuffling the Titanic's deck chairs, trying to make a few millionaires comfortable post crash, as the gullible and the rest who are bled dry, gulp some sovereignty as consciousness fadesMissing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems." I'm not fully aware of all EU rules details but as Article 50 can be revoked, you're suggesting that any country only ever has one opportunity to leave and could not resubmit Article 50 at some unspecified future date? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain" Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain" That's bullsh*t. Easiest deal on history they said. There is no mandate for no deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. " This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain" What was 'discussed' and the 2 voting options are separate points. The discussion pre-referendum,included the subject of how we'd leave, where it was explicitly stated that there would be a transitional plan and whenever it was queried if a no deal exit would happen, it was also explicitly stated that it would not. The referendum was therefore not a 'yes' result that included a no deal exit. In any event, a no deal exit is worse for millions of people, businesses that export/import, as well as governments that don't have border or customs infrastructure in place for a no deal exit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it."The facts were there for everyone. Everyone underestimated the result might be leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re Scotland, you would expect any independent state to inherit a proportionate share of the UK national debt. An eighth or a ninth, based on GDP or population share. Say £200 million. Can you imagine the uproar in England if Scotland just walked away and left its share of the debt with the rump state of UK? .
Could you imagine the uproar in Scotland if the referendum to leave was passed by majority and then they spent 3 years not leaving while the entire establishment spent that time telling everybody who voted leave they were thick old stupid and racist xenophobics for wanting to run there own country and choose who and how many get to enter?.
This is a fantastic example of the terrible comparisons people make.
No one is saying that there are any positives to come out of Brexit for the UK, it's 100% negative. In the case of Scotland they will have some ups and downs. It's a balance what's best for the country.
Sorry I'm not sure if you meant this in an ironic way or for real.
"Wanting the run there own country", sic. I've yet to meet anyone that could point to a single EU decision that the UK voted against in the European parliament that they had an issue with. This argument is so weak that it's unbelievable people still keep trotting it out. It really shows that some people will believe anything they're told without question.
.
Your question is problematic by it's wording, can I find a single thing that the EU has implemented that the UK government voted against, well obviously not because the UK government through and through is Pro EU, it would by and large vote in the vast majority of EU decisions, they are and have been on the same page for decades.
The same cannot be said for the UK population,I could find you dozens of EU decisions that the majority of the UK population would be against and frankly many majorities in other EU countries.
In fact one could argue that the problem with modern democracies is they don't actually listen to they're electorate or pay homage and then get in a car and dismiss her a bigoted old woman!.
Let's just assume you're correct and the government is pro EU (it's not, it's clearly divided). Then what's the problem? If the UK MEPs agree with the EU and we vote in favour of the vast majority, then vote for a different MEP. And if the UK government is so poor at making choices, why do you want to hand them more power, what makes you think there is any good in it for the UK?
You don't need to find me dozens, but if you could find me one of the EU regulations that you don't agree with that the UK voted against. That would be good.
.
Well it's divided 75/35 Pro EU so yes it's Pro EU, the Tory government ran on a firm remain vote, no UK government for forty years has been anything but Pro EU.
What about the main point here. Any EU regulations that you don't like that the UK voted against?
If you can do it without googling. Then fair play to you. But the main point is that this line about "taking control back", people who use this have no clue what this means or why it would be better for us. .
Well I half agree, our first point of taking back control starts in Westminster who for forty years have voted and implemented stuff the majority don't want, they voted it in at EU level because Westminster like I said has been Pro EU for decades.
I mean so you really think Maastricht would have passed a referendum in 96? Or whenever it was."Yeah Westminster is the bigger problem. And without the EU to hold them back. Prepare for a field day of oppression and yet more policies to move power and wealth from the people to the already ultra wealthy and powerful. Which is the primary purpose of Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave."The facts were there but they were dismissed as Project Fear. And again, if you're so confident take another vote. Otherwise you're just full of sh*t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
The facts were there but they were dismissed as Project Fear.
And again, if you're so confident take another vote. Otherwise you're just full of sh*t."Don't need another vote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
The facts were there but they were dismissed as Project Fear.
And again, if you're so confident take another vote. Otherwise you're just full of sh*t.
Don't need another vote"Coward. And also wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
The facts were there but they were dismissed as Project Fear.
And again, if you're so confident take another vote. Otherwise you're just full of sh*t.
Don't need another vote
Coward. And also wrong. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The key difference between the two is the UK policy was to remain and the Scottish policy is to leave. One is swimming against the tide. . All that shows is both parliaments are trying to push through their own political agenda despite both sets of citizens voting the opposite way." Show me a country that ever held a referendum on a policy of "no change"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave."Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA. As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit. If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA.
As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit.
If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave. "Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute. Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain" That is just so symptomatic of one dimensional thinking. How do you think leaving the EU would actually work in the grown up, adult world where actions have consequences and decisions have ramifications? How were our borders, imports and exports going to be affected? How would the regulations and standards that apply to everything that we manufacture, create, build and publish be affected? What about the money that we owe to the EU? Do we just tell them to fuck off knowing that we still need to trade with them? What about all the shared technical agencies for medicines, aviation, aerospace, banking and nuclear technology - how would those arrangements be handled on leaving? The problem that runs through the entire Brexit supporting population is that they just don’t want to accept real world complications. They just want a simple solution because thinking about stuff is just too hard. The UK will sooner, or later have to have a WA with the EU because arrangements have to made about how we leave and what the future obligations and responsibilities are going to be on both sides. After that WA has been agreed, the last three years that we have just had will seem like a walk in the park because we will not be sailing off into the Atlantic and geography will dictate that we will still do most of our trade with our closest neighbours and if the Govt wants that trade to be efficient, productive and good for the country then it will become a state of perpetual and never ending negotiation with the EU. Future negotiations will literally never end as the EU evolves and the external nations who want to trade with it continuously have to talk and adapt and modify and further negotiate treaties and agreements. The idea of Brexit making things simpler is beyond farcical - the complications have not even started yet, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA.
As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit.
If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave.
Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute.
Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA.
"It was underestimated by those voting leave. Hence why they should get another go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain That is just so symptomatic of one dimensional thinking. How do you think leaving the EU would actually work in the grown up, adult world where actions have consequences and decisions have ramifications? How were our borders, imports and exports going to be affected? How would the regulations and standards that apply to everything that we manufacture, create, build and publish be affected? What about the money that we owe to the EU? Do we just tell them to fuck off knowing that we still need to trade with them? What about all the shared technical agencies for medicines, aviation, aerospace, banking and nuclear technology - how would those arrangements be handled on leaving? The problem that runs through the entire Brexit supporting population is that they just don’t want to accept real world complications. They just want a simple solution because thinking about stuff is just too hard. The UK will sooner, or later have to have a WA with the EU because arrangements have to made about how we leave and what the future obligations and responsibilities are going to be on both sides. After that WA has been agreed, the last three years that we have just had will seem like a walk in the park because we will not be sailing off into the Atlantic and geography will dictate that we will still do most of our trade with our closest neighbours and if the Govt wants that trade to be efficient, productive and good for the country then it will become a state of perpetual and never ending negotiation with the EU. Future negotiations will literally never end as the EU evolves and the external nations who want to trade with it continuously have to talk and adapt and modify and further negotiate treaties and agreements. The idea of Brexit making things simpler is beyond farcical - the complications have not even started yet, " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is just so symptomatic of one dimensional thinking. etc etc " You are making this too complicated. Brexiteers like to make it simple. So they keep it simple - yaaay, leave the EU. And then when the proverbial hits the fan, they need something else that is simple. Blame the EU - yaaay! Tis how populism works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA.
As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit.
If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave.
Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute.
Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA.
"Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum. And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto. I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA.
As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit.
If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave.
Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute.
Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA.
Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum.
And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto.
I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with... "It probably was a Mayism - but no stomach for it actually being a real possibility.
In my mind the democratic choice was in or out ... that’s it. Everything after the result is hindsight..
The new catchphrase now seems to be “time will tell”  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missing 1 point under eu rules you cannot revoke A50 then re submit it.Also how many mps would vote to revoke my guess the snp and lib /dems. I do not think there is any appetite to revoke Article 50 unless it had the mandate of a referendum or a General Election. That doesn't apply to the SNP, because revocation would be in line with the result of the original referendum there. Neither no deal nor revoke has a mandate. Only a Tory negotiated deal has a mandate. . I don't think that's right, in fact I think the only thing that has a mandate is leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The question was actually remain or leave and leave won. The WA is part of the tory brexit. We voted tory to negotiate a deal. May's deal was the outcome. The reason the WA wasn't outlined specifically is no one really thought about NI at the time and how brexit and a frictionless border works. The WA is the outcome of delivering this promise so by implication has a mandate. As you say leave won (having promised a careful change not a sudden step (and a negotiated deal) The tories also won. Having promised a smoothed and orderly brexit and a deep and special partnership including comprehensive free trade and customs arrangements. Yet here we are. Facing a sudden step. No deal. And no special arrangements. No trade agreements. No custom arrangements. And a new PM who may take us down this route by brining down time even after a vote of no confidence. I get people want brexit. And some are happy with a no deal Brexit. I don't get how people square no deal with anything approaching democratic given all the promises and all the votes. It seems the ends justify the means and taking back control can start afterwards. We can kick out the people who make our laws... But only after they have bent the rules of our democracy to make a one way change. And it is one way. No way are we going to get the powers and privakagws we do now. (cynically I think this is the eus long term olan. No withdrawal agreement was ever discussed during the referendum, it was leave or remain Not explcity no. No deal also wasn't discussed. So under that argument we are at an empass. But the leave campaign was light on details. Other than a deal, nothing was really promised. The WA is only really the mechanics of delivering what the tories promised. Does using the WA allow the toriws to deliver on their promises. Yes. Did the electorate choose the tories to deliver Brexit. Yes. If the WA has no mandate, no deal certainly doesn't. This is why some are saying another vote. Let's clear this up after all. Let's be clear on what we are voting for. Not just what we are voting not for. This
If people are so sure it's the will of the people let's ask them now the facts are known.
If the majority vote for no deal I'll happily accept it.
The facts were there for everyone.
Everyone underestimated the result might be leave.
Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA.
As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit.
If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave.
Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute.
Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA.
Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum.
And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto.
I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with...
It probably was a Mayism - but no stomach for it actually being a real possibility.
In my mind the democratic choice was in or out ... that’s it. Everything after the result is hindsight..
The new catchphrase now seems to be “time will tell” "But no-one can say if what's true in your mind reflects what anyone else thought, especially given what the Leave campaign (e.g. the current Government) said at the time. The only way to know that is to have another vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The facts were there for everyone. Everyone underestimated the result might be leave. Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA. As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit. If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave. Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute. Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA. Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum. And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto. I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with...
It probably was a Mayism - but no stomach for it actually being a real possibility.
In my mind the democratic choice was in or out ... that’s it. Everything after the result is hindsight..
The new catchphrase now seems to be “time will tell”
But no-one can say if what's true in your mind reflects what anyone else thought, especially given what the Leave campaign (e.g. the current Government) said at the time. The only way to know that is to have another vote. "The choice was in or out. What anyones reason/s were for wanting either of those choices is up to you, and doesn't have to be a consistent reason for the majority result | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The facts were there for everyone. Everyone underestimated the result might be leave. Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA. As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit. If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave. Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute. Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA. Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum. And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto. I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with...
It probably was a Mayism - but no stomach for it actually being a real possibility.
In my mind the democratic choice was in or out ... that’s it. Everything after the result is hindsight..
The new catchphrase now seems to be “time will tell”
But no-one can say if what's true in your mind reflects what anyone else thought, especially given what the Leave campaign (e.g. the current Government) said at the time. The only way to know that is to have another vote.
The choice was in or out. What anyones reason/s were for wanting either of those choices is up to you, and doesn't have to be a consistent reason for the majority result"You do realise this is not a game don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The facts were there for everyone. Everyone underestimated the result might be leave. Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA. As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit. If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave. Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute. Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA. Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum. And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto. I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with...
It probably was a Mayism - but no stomach for it actually being a real possibility.
In my mind the democratic choice was in or out ... that’s it. Everything after the result is hindsight..
The new catchphrase now seems to be “time will tell”
But no-one can say if what's true in your mind reflects what anyone else thought, especially given what the Leave campaign (e.g. the current Government) said at the time. The only way to know that is to have another vote.
The choice was in or out. What anyones reason/s were for wanting either of those choices is up to you, and doesn't have to be a consistent reason for the majority result
You do realise this is not a game don't you?
"It isn't a game | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The facts were there for everyone. Everyone underestimated the result might be leave. Including the fact that a true and full divorce is only really achievable via WTO. And so when we talked about a deal we were (without it being spelled out) were accepting the mechanisms to achieve this. Like the WA. As ever, I revert back to why May's deal is less in line with the will of the people than no deal. If we didn't vote on a specific type of Brexit the we voted on any type of Brexit. We chose our type of Brexit at the GE. Where we chose a Tory brexit. Not a labour Bexit. Not a Farage party brexit. Not an ERG brexit. If someone doest like a WA type of Brexit they probably shouldn't have voted to leave. Leaving without a WA isn't something new. I keep getting the feeling that it is being portrayed as being something new that has been chucked in at the last minute. Didn't we go through a period in the last couple of years when the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" was voiced... I would suggest again it was underestimated that we actually might end up leaving without a WA. Wasn't that a Mayism? So not part of the leave campaign. I don't recall wto being seriously discussed as part of the referendum. And if it is a Mayism, she bought back a deal she saw as being a good deal and in line with her parties manifesto. I agree we underestimated the probability of leaving without a deal. Even a week ago it was a million to one... ... I'm just less in favour of following a course of action which most people didn't consider seriously when voting... In my mind democracy is about what the people want... Not what they've ended up with...
It probably was a Mayism - but no stomach for it actually being a real possibility.
In my mind the democratic choice was in or out ... that’s it. Everything after the result is hindsight..
The new catchphrase now seems to be “time will tell”
But no-one can say if what's true in your mind reflects what anyone else thought, especially given what the Leave campaign (e.g. the current Government) said at the time. The only way to know that is to have another vote.
The choice was in or out. What anyones reason/s were for wanting either of those choices is up to you, and doesn't have to be a consistent reason for the majority result
You do realise this is not a game don't you?
It isn't a game"So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody. "Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. The question we were all asked was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices: Remain a member of the European Union Leave the European Union | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
"Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?"If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared. I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings. We were asked a question.. we answered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
"So did people make a decision based on the information available or something else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered."The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards. So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns. The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns. The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave. As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act. The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological. It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say. So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
So did people make a decision based on the information available or something else?"I think there are surveys/ polls which give some insight in to the reasons people voted the way they did. I don’t know if they are as detailed to provide data on whether they based their choice on information available or something else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
So did people make a decision based on the information available or something else?
I think there are surveys/ polls which give some insight in to the reasons people voted the way they did.
I don’t know if they are as detailed to provide data on whether they based their choice on information available or something else.
"Are you Pat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
So did people make a decision based on the information available or something else?
I think there are surveys/ polls which give some insight in to the reasons people voted the way they did.
I don’t know if they are as detailed to provide data on whether they based their choice on information available or something else.
Are you Pat?"Lol hahaha ... you do have some humour about you
No I am not !
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
So did people make a decision based on the information available or something else?
I think there are surveys/ polls which give some insight in to the reasons people voted the way they did.
I don’t know if they are as detailed to provide data on whether they based their choice on information available or something else.
"I suspect there are polls out there... Which would say all the messages that vote leave put out... Which can only be achieved via no deal. Yet I suspect the same people also want a deal. And no NI issues. Its not that people didn't know what they want. It's just the can't have it all and no one really knows whatbthe key priorities are and what is a reasonable price to pay. And who can blame them. We still have the idea being touted that we can have it all. Be this sub clause c (but not d), a tech solution (which doesn't fully exist), a security waiver, or a transition period. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
So did people make a decision based on the information available or something else?
I think there are surveys/ polls which give some insight in to the reasons people voted the way they did.
I don’t know if they are as detailed to provide data on whether they based their choice on information available or something else.
I suspect there are polls out there... Which would say all the messages that vote leave put out... Which can only be achieved via no deal. Yet I suspect the same people also want a deal. And no NI issues. Its not that people didn't know what they want. It's just the can't have it all and no one really knows whatbthe key priorities are and what is a reasonable price to pay.
And who can blame them.
We still have the idea being touted that we can have it all. Be this sub clause c (but not d), a tech solution (which doesn't fully exist), a security waiver, or a transition period. "I agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
". Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure. We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
"When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. ". Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all. As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. .
Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all.
As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal"If that was true why bother to trigger a50. Just leave the day after the vote. No one mentioned leaving without a withdrawl agreement. No even remotely implied this until a long time after the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. .
Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all.
As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal
If that was true why bother to trigger a50. Just leave the day after the vote. No one mentioned leaving without a withdrawl agreement. No even remotely implied this until a long time after the referendum. "This is all to do with the eu wanting a withdrawal agreement before talking trade deals. If teresa may had said we cannot do that they both need to be discussed at the same time there would be none of this at all a backstop would not have even been talked about.The eu were very clear about "cherry picking" but that was exactly what they did wanting 39 million with no guarantee of trading after. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. .
Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all.
As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal
If that was true why bother to trigger a50. Just leave the day after the vote. No one mentioned leaving without a withdrawl agreement. No even remotely implied this until a long time after the referendum. ". Article 50 is your notice to leave the EU, it's got nothing to do with a withdrawal agreement, that is in effect an agreement between both sides on how to leave, which bits you leave, who owes what, etc etc, it is NOT a trade deal. When I left my wife I made a commitment to leave, afterwards I thought about a legal agreement between us to separate, if we couldn't have agreed an agreement I wouldn't have decided to stay, my leaving did not depend on whether I could get an agreement or not. No politican of any persuasion mentioned the withdrawal agreement at any time during the referendum because it's irrelevant to the point of leaving or staying. Trade deals were talked about because that was about life after leaving. Were leaving with an agreement or without one, the agreement does not mean we'll get a trade deal or not, the EU has been quite pointed on that decision, they will not enter into trade deal discussions until we've both agreed an agreement to leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. .
Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all.
As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal
If that was true why bother to trigger a50. Just leave the day after the vote. No one mentioned leaving without a withdrawl agreement. No even remotely implied this until a long time after the referendum. .
Article 50 is your notice to leave the EU, it's got nothing to do with a withdrawal agreement, that is in effect an agreement between both sides on how to leave, which bits you leave, who owes what, etc etc, it is NOT a trade deal.
When I left my wife I made a commitment to leave, afterwards I thought about a legal agreement between us to separate, if we couldn't have agreed an agreement I wouldn't have decided to stay, my leaving did not depend on whether I could get an agreement or not.
No politican of any persuasion mentioned the withdrawal agreement at any time during the referendum because it's irrelevant to the point of leaving or staying.
Trade deals were talked about because that was about life after leaving.
Were leaving with an agreement or without one, the agreement does not mean we'll get a trade deal or not, the EU has been quite pointed on that decision, they will not enter into trade deal discussions until we've both agreed an agreement to leave."Pretty much every one on the leave side dismissed any suggestion that we would lose access to the single market as project fear, i don't any politician on the leave side that suggested we would lose access . If we leave with no deal we will lose access to the single market even if only temporarily. Trade deals generally trade deals take many years even decades to sort out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This isn't correct. Section 2 of Article 50 states: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union . . ." This is exactly what the EU and UK did. The European Council and the European Parliament approved the agreement but the UK Government was unable to persuade its Parliament to approve. A withdrawal agreement is a legal requirement. " . That is guidance on how the EU should deal with a member who wants to leave. Nothing to do with the leaving party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. .
Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all.
As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal
If that was true why bother to trigger a50. Just leave the day after the vote. No one mentioned leaving without a withdrawl agreement. No even remotely implied this until a long time after the referendum. .
Article 50 is your notice to leave the EU, it's got nothing to do with a withdrawal agreement, that is in effect an agreement between both sides on how to leave, which bits you leave, who owes what, etc etc, it is NOT a trade deal.
When I left my wife I made a commitment to leave, afterwards I thought about a legal agreement between us to separate, if we couldn't have agreed an agreement I wouldn't have decided to stay, my leaving did not depend on whether I could get an agreement or not.
No politican of any persuasion mentioned the withdrawal agreement at any time during the referendum because it's irrelevant to the point of leaving or staying.
Trade deals were talked about because that was about life after leaving.
Were leaving with an agreement or without one, the agreement does not mean we'll get a trade deal or not, the EU has been quite pointed on that decision, they will not enter into trade deal discussions until we've both agreed an agreement to leave.
Pretty much every one on the leave side dismissed any suggestion that we would lose access to the single market as project fear, i don't any politician on the leave side that suggested we would lose access . If we leave with no deal we will lose access to the single market even if only temporarily. Trade deals generally trade deals take many years even decades to sort out. ". No every country in the world has access to the single market, we will continue to have access to the single market, it's about tariffs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This isn't correct. Section 2 of Article 50 states: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union . . ." This is exactly what the EU and UK did. The European Council and the European Parliament approved the agreement but the UK Government was unable to persuade its Parliament to approve. A withdrawal agreement is a legal requirement. " And the next section.... 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This isn't correct. Section 2 of Article 50 states: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union . . ." This is exactly what the EU and UK did. The European Council and the European Parliament approved the agreement but the UK Government was unable to persuade its Parliament to approve. A withdrawal agreement is a legal requirement. . That is guidance on how the EU should deal with a member who wants to leave. Nothing to do with the leaving party." It is written in a Treaty that was approved by the UK Parliament, so it is more than just guidance - it is a legal undertaking. Both parties have complied with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You do realise this is not a game don't you? It isn't a game So, it doesn't matter if what people actually wanted or expected when voting leave is actually happening. Or if those people now want something else. F*ck em, let's do it anyway. Seems a great way to make monumental sweeping changes that will affect the wellbeing of everybody.
Thats looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
The question we were all asked was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" ... followed by 2 choices:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Yes. I know. Does that mean we should all act like lemmings?
If we have all acted like lemmings then the culpability and responsibility is shared.
I don't think anyone has acted like lemmings.
We were asked a question.. we answered.
The simple fact is there are many ways to leave the EU, and before the vote those campaigning for leave said we'd make a deal and that we held all the cards.
So, the question on the ballot doesn't provide a clear answer to voters intent, and the facts now show the Leave campaign was selling unicorns.
The ones who sold those unicorns are now in power and in order to retain that power they desperately need people to buy more f*cking unicorns.
The damage of a no deal is almost certainly going to be disastrous for millions, particularly for many who voted leave.
As a country we have the ability to control our destiny and think critically before we act.
The only reason not to put the choice back to the people is that you're scared or ideological.
It's ironic because Remainers often get accused of patronising the "people" yet it's the hard-core Brexiteers who apparently don't trust them to have the final say.
So, I didn't say we'd all acted like lemmings but I do think many of those promoting or supporting a no deal are definitely acting that way.
.
Nobody in politics even mentioned the withdrawal agreement, they talked alot about a trade deal, some said it would be hard and others said easy, we voted out based on that argument, still today we don't know what the trade deal will be, nobody knows for sure.
We voted leave without a withdrawal agreement and with the possibility of a trade deal.
When was no deal brexit first mentioned? Well after the referendum vote. No one mentioned no deal brexit on either side. .
Your confused between a "trade deal" that was mentioned and the withdrawal agreement that was never mentioned at any time at all.
As far as the general public were concerned we were leaving with no withdrawal agreement and maybe/maybe not a trade deal
If that was true why bother to trigger a50. Just leave the day after the vote. No one mentioned leaving without a withdrawl agreement. No even remotely implied this until a long time after the referendum. .
Article 50 is your notice to leave the EU, it's got nothing to do with a withdrawal agreement, that is in effect an agreement between both sides on how to leave, which bits you leave, who owes what, etc etc, it is NOT a trade deal.
When I left my wife I made a commitment to leave, afterwards I thought about a legal agreement between us to separate, if we couldn't have agreed an agreement I wouldn't have decided to stay, my leaving did not depend on whether I could get an agreement or not.
No politican of any persuasion mentioned the withdrawal agreement at any time during the referendum because it's irrelevant to the point of leaving or staying.
Trade deals were talked about because that was about life after leaving.
Were leaving with an agreement or without one, the agreement does not mean we'll get a trade deal or not, the EU has been quite pointed on that decision, they will not enter into trade deal discussions until we've both agreed an agreement to leave.
Pretty much every one on the leave side dismissed any suggestion that we would lose access to the single market as project fear, i don't any politician on the leave side that suggested we would lose access . If we leave with no deal we will lose access to the single market even if only temporarily. Trade deals generally trade deals take many years even decades to sort out. .
No every country in the world has access to the single market, we will continue to have access to the single market, it's about tariffs."They have access to the EU market with tariffs. The single market is tariff free and allows virtually seamless movement of goods within it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This isn't correct. Section 2 of Article 50 states: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union . . ." This is exactly what the EU and UK did. The European Council and the European Parliament approved the agreement but the UK Government was unable to persuade its Parliament to approve. A withdrawal agreement is a legal requirement. . That is guidance on how the EU should deal with a member who wants to leave. Nothing to do with the leaving party. It is written in a Treaty that was approved by the UK Parliament, so it is more than just guidance - it is a legal undertaking. Both parties have complied with it." . Where does it mention what the leaving party should do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
