Re: Brexit
 

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, tweeted this after a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn. She does not seem to think Labour will strike a deal on Brexit with Theresa May.

Jason Groves of the Daily Mail.

Re: Brexit
 

And you think they are unrelated, why?

It’s the political environment that does not tolerate dissension that allows the trade to flourish - no pesky dissension to disrupt things.

---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Anyway, on a related totally ironic matter...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/877491...k-stays-in-eu/

Re: Brexit
 

Brexit minister Chris Heaton-Harris resigns saying he's opposed to any further delay in leaving EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...exit-live-news

Re: Brexit
 

Sky News
‏
Verified account

@SkyNews
5m
5 minutes ago


More
"Forget the fiction… it's absolute nonsense. It needs to be called out."

Mark Carney says it's a "myth" that the UK could maintain zero tariffs in a Brexit on WTO rules.

Get the full story here: http://po.st/cCo7pA

Re: Brexit
 

What planet are you on today, Hugh? There is no such connection that I was advocating.

Re: Brexit
 

Powering through the second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill. Truly historic moments here, regardless of who wins the vote(s) later on.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

The ayes have it. 315-310.

Onto stage 3. This is fast.

Re: Brexit
 

Bills have got though all stages within a day before I think

Re: Brexit
 

There’s been a few instances where there’s been Parliamentary will to do so.

Re: Brexit
 

You gave Singapore as an example of how Britain could succeed.

I showed some of the reasons Singapore succeeds, and why that meant it wasn’t a pertinent example.

That planet...

btw, we’re forecast to be 7th soon, after India and France.

https://ceoworld.biz/2018/12/28/gdp-...conomies-2019/ http://statisticstimes.com/economy/c...jected-gdp.php

Re: Brexit
 

The EU elections are a massive headache for everyone. The EU hates it because they've already allocated the seats and it's a real mess if then leave having appointed MEPs.

Leavers should also hate them not just because it's the EU Parliament but if we do end up participating then suddenly there is a lack of urgency from both sides. The EU no longer have a pressing need to get us out on time and we've already got MEPs and missed the original deadline so a 'what's another few months'? syndrome might kick in.

The people that would love participating in the EU elections is the People's Vote campaign because suddenly the time will be there. In fact participating in the EU elections is now a requirement for a referendum to take place.

Re: Brexit
 

The gurgling sound coming from the Houses of Parliament and Number 10, is the sound of our democracy being flushed down the toilet.:mad:

Re: Brexit
 

Nah, there has been thunder and rain quite a bit in London today. Hailstones too. It's probably that.

Re: Brexit
 

I think it's all the unicorns commiserating their imminent demise in the bar. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

I actually think today could demonstrate the strength of our democracy. In fact our, what could be considered outdated, traditions could save us from populism in a way that a different system (e.g a republic) could not.

Re: Brexit
 

Today's bill isn't really that significant. May has already indicted she'll ask for an extension but bill or no bill the main issue is the EU granting it.

Re: Brexit
 

Parliament doesn’t trust her. That’s the real significance. If it did trust her you are correct, this legislation wouldn’t be necessary. It could also put Parliament in control of future extensions, if required.

The EU will allow an extension. Every passing day makes a second referendum and ultimately remaining more likely. There’s no reason for the EU to arbitrarily guillotine the process - if they wanted to they could/would have done it on March 29th.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:40 ----------

Majority of 1 at Third Reading. Ooft.

Re: Brexit
 

so no deal on 12th April legally off table when bill passes lords tomorrow

Re: Brexit
 

But not really - you still don't get it - EU Law trounces UK Law - the Speaker, John Bercow pretty much said this last week - so if any of the 27 EU member States, say no, we are out without a deal. The Bill still has to receive Royal Assent and Theresa May, has every right to advise the Queen not to give Royal Assent.

Re: Brexit
 

As Damian said - it’s pretty clear she’s going to keep asking for extensions anyway. It’s also pretty clear the Commons doesn’t trust her. Once upon a time the symbolic value of this would have been immense. Today it’s just another government defeat over Brexit.

The main difference here is that it is a full-blown Bill so it has to go to the Lords. Their Lordships don’t like to be rushed and they don’t like bad law. So it is by no means certain the remainder of its passage will be swift.

I would also be a little more careful about putting so much faith in the EU to be as keen to keep kicking the can down the road as May has been. There comes a point where our continued presence begins to seriously impact on the purity of the project. They won’t hang on for a deal at any cost and with two rounds of indicative votes passed and a third voted down, it is clear that neither Parliament nor Government wants a second referendum. So where’s the incentive for the EU27 to keep holding on for one?

Re: Brexit
 

the EU will give us a extension that want us in EU


Faisal Islam
✔
@faisalislam
· 24m

Replying to @faisalislam
Now it goes to the House of Lords tomorrow where it is expected to pass in one day... speaker says it doesn’t need Royal Consent - seems likely to become Act...

Mark Francois says this is a “constitutional outrage” - “forgive them father for they know not what they do”

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, although Theresa said it was not an option yesterday nobody believes her!

I’m curious about subsection 7 (in the as introduced version - not sure if it got tidied up) but would it require the PM to move a motion every time the EU came up with a a new extension date? It could be never ending, if so.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't know how you can possibly say today is a day of strength for democracy, that is utter nonsense - for a start, the Bill has been devised to try scupper the Democratic vote of 2016, you know the vote where you lost. :rolleyes:

Remain lost that vote so how you can say Democracy wins is beyond me - it is utter bollocks.

Don't try come back and argue with me on this. There is a lot of very unhappy people with this shambles undertaken today, that we have people who stood on Election Manifestos to honour the Democratic decision taken in 2016 and they have lied through their teeth, that makes them total liars and makes a mockery of a Democratic institutions, this makes you happy because you are selfish, you want to Remain but you lost that vote, so no this is not a day of strength at all for Democracy, this pathetic Remain Parliament is stealing the decision taken from the people who won that vote.

Day of strength my arse.

Re: Brexit
 

That’s a lot of “ifs”.

The more likely scenario is the EU will be happy to have us trundle along making net contributions of £1bn a month in a status not dissimilar to the Withdrawal Agreement anyway (which moved the ”serious” Brexit date to 31st December 2020).

The EU want us to remain, and are somewhat expert at undermining referendum outcomes they don’t agree with. The idea they’ll just force no deal is fanciful when their ideal outcome is closer than it’s been at any time since 23rd June 2016. Their other stable outcomes - the May deal, CM 2.0 are all realistic - yet there’s a huge Parliamentary majority, and shortly it’ll be written into statute, against no deal. As you know, only statute can override statute.

European Parliament elections are our problem, and actually could be an opportunity for everyone to get a protest vote out their system before a real election comes along.

Re: Brexit
 

I couldn't give a shit if the EU want us to Remain - we voted out - this country voted to leave it - we should be leaving as democracy decided and your side lost but it's stealing the decision taken because it pathetically wants to remain in a corrupted and cancerous union. :dozey:

Re: Brexit
 

We know you don’t give a shit, but they’re your last hope for no deal on April 12th (or at all).

I’ve outlined many times how and why Parliament is sovereign in this country. That’s exactly what we are witnessing in action. If you want anything else the system needs overhauled further, a “revolution” establishing a republic and an elected second chamber. Presidential elections and senate elections keeping everyone on their toes all year round.

Leave will undoubtedly now have to win a second referendum mainly because it failed to establish what Brexit should look like. Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said a confirmatory referendum should take place, and I for one look forward to it. I’d even be tempted to vote for May’s deal if it made it onto the ballot.

Re: Brexit
 

Except it's not Sovereign, when EU Law trounces UK Law, John Bercow, HoC Speaker vouched this last week!!! :rolleyes:

More rubbish - We already knew in 2016 what Brexit was - leave means leave, not this half in, half out crap.

By the way my hopes have not dashed and there will not be a Second Referendum, I keep telling you this.

Re: Brexit
 

Parliament trounces the people, you’ve missed my point.

If you take such hardline positions you are going to find yourself continually disappointed as this process develops over the coming months.

Re: Brexit
 

The police have now warned people not to make inflammatory comments:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4108791.html

There are a lot of unhappy people and it makes me wonder if they have some intelligence that suggests action is being planned. I've never known the country to be so divided, not even during the miners strike.

Re: Brexit
 

Of course people are unhappy but only extremist's and those without a brain would ever take it further as the best place to voice ones unhappiness has always been through the ballot box.

Re: Brexit
 

If/when it all goes wrong you can blame the Brexit fanatics who rather than compromise (and back May’s deal) are wanting to play russian roulette over it.

May’s deal would have passed and we would be outside the European Union already if they put country over ideology.

Healthy advanced countries have also undergone revolution at one form or another, except the UK. I think it’d be a positive thing in the long run. It might take 50 years, but hey, that’s what Rees-Mogg said about crashing out on WTO terms.

For some time the current predicament has been entirely predictable.

Re: Brexit
 

. . . yeah, because that worked last time for 17 million people didn't it

Re: Brexit
 

So you will have a chance when the next General Election is called to voice your displeasure and to punish them...

Re: Brexit
 

Lol, they've obviously been reading the Torygraph readers online comments. Totally unmoderated with threats of violence, what a nice lot !

Re: Brexit
 

The Telegraph used to be a decent paper at one time until it was politicised like many of the other newspapers nowadays.

Re: Brexit
 

Theresa May’s deal or Arch Remainer. Olly Robins, isn’t Brexit, the ERG are not Extremists or fanatics, they want to implement what the country had decided in 2016, to fully leave the EU. Not remain in little bits of it.

Re: Brexit
 

There are clearly different interpretations of Brexit, or else Gove, Johnson, Davis, Mogg, Dodds would all agree. It’s not me that’s decided there’s more than one definition. It’s them!

Re: Brexit
 

I think that's the trouble - lack of compromise. Everyone needs to accept that the ideal vision they may have had in their head for the UK post 29/3 won't happen, get over it and find a compromise. Full credit to TM and JC for realising this.

What has made Theresa May realise that no-deal is unacceptable? Sky News has an interesting article. A relevant quote:
https://news.sky.com/story/why-did-t...rexit-11683841

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------

Spot on.

Good article (collection of tweets) here calling out Piers Morgan on his false assertion that people voted for a no-deal Brexit. https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/04/04...tterly-brutal/

Re: Brexit
 

I agree, but not just Brexit fanatics.

The Labour party whose only objective was to engineer a General Election.

Re: Brexit
 

The Labour Party have a clear socialist vision. It’s not compatible with the Brexit proposals offered thus far. Privatising everything and reducing workers rights is only going to make things harder for the future Labour Government.

It is right that, as any democratic institution, it respects the will of members.

Re: Brexit
 

Fed up with Brexit? WATCH how CROMWELL dealt with dithering, self-serving Parliament!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...richard-harris

Re: Brexit
 

Actually its a great film as it is one of my favourites.:)

Re: Brexit
 

And that speech is still right on the money today.

Re: Brexit
 

Great film and great writing. Saw it at The Gaumont, Birmingham when it first was released.

Re: Brexit
 

Except of course Parliament is fine. It’s Government that is the problem.

Brave and noble MPs putting country above party such as Letwin, Cooper and Grieve are saving the country from being ruined in an EU exit nobody voted for.

Re: Brexit
 

:rofl:

Re: Brexit
 

If Government could govern we’d be out by now.

Re: Brexit
 

The government and the opposition frankly could not govern a piss up in a brewery.

Re: Brexit
 

In defence of the Opposition the chances of People’s Vote and remaining have never been higher because they decided to play a long drawn out game. Had they tackled the Government head on it’d have focused minds earlier, we’ll ahead of March 29th.

Re: Brexit
 

Wonder how the new Torbour party is doing?

Re: Brexit
 

Wong yet again - There's me thinking it was actually the electorate that should be respected. :rolleyes:

Well, they were being shit on from above, quite literally an hour or so ago - House of Commons has been suspended for the day, due to sewer leak/drainage issue.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes they should be congratulated for reneging on their manifesto pledge, and frustrating the will of the people.

Re: Brexit
 

They didn’t win the election despite the manifesto pledge. They’re not in a position to deliver, nor should they, to facilitate a damaging Tory Brexit.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Why would anyone want to do that?

If the population want to engage with politics they’re free to join a political party and steer it in any way they see fit.

Re: Brexit
 

Jeez - just seen this reply of yours - You are taking the piss again aren't you?

Nothing at all noble about those pathetic MPs - they have stood on election manifestos to honour the result and then decide to go against them, once elected because they are pathetic and won't accept the democratic result. So no, absolute rubbish that they are noble or brave.

I am sick of you telling everyone, in this thread, they didn't know what they were voting for - they did - they voted to leave and yes that was what the country voted for, the ones that bothered to vote, that is.

You do know what leave means ? :dunce:

It's not rocket science - leave means to "exit something", "get out of" - leaving the EU means exactly that. FFS, I am sick of seeing the same shit being said in this thread, that Brexiteers didn't know what version of Brexit they wanted - Clue: We DID!!! :rolleyes:

I sure as hell know what I voted for and I am damn well sure 17.4 Million others did as well.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

Um - they won their SEAT, that got them in Parliament. :dozey:

Re: Brexit
 

How do you explain the contradiction between Davis, Mogg, Raab, Fox and Johnson as to whether May’s deal is good or bad?

I’m certain everyone who voted leave wanted some form of leaving. There’s no uniform consensus on the future relationship, customs etc. Even you must see that surely?

As for each MP winning their seat you can see from the 6 million signatures on the petition that there’s a huge gulf among Labour voting constituencies.

Re: Brexit
 

Their contradiction is not my contradiction, you need to ask them, not me! :rolleyes:

There is no different forms of leaving. When you leave your house - you don't take off your arms and leave them behind, same when you leave a room, leave the country, you don't leave bits of you there, there is no differential differences with the definition of leaving, as I explained above leave means exactly that.

Re: Brexit
 

So you can’t speak for them, but they must be among the 17.4m?

It’d be a bizarre set of circumstances if 17 399 750 agreed and all of those who had contradictory opinions were in the House of Commons (plus Farage, who once liked the Norway model).

There’s a difference between leaving the house to go to the pub or to the cinema. Surely it’s worth deciding where to go before standing in the rain? What’s the rush?

Re: Brexit
 

I have yet to meet a fellow leaver who did not know what they were voting for.

I've met many remainers who've told me I didn't know what I was voting for.

Re: Brexit
 

Not watch the news?

Anyway I’m going to leave this line of the topic. It’s going to be a long six months til the second referendum if we keep going in circles.

Re: Brexit
 

Sorry, 17.4 Million beats 6 Million and if I was a Remainer, I would be very very worried that only 6 Million people have signed a well publicised petition to revoking Article 50 and Remaining in the EU. Where are all the 16 Million people who voted Remain, where is their signature, why have they not added theirs to it?

Not to mention that the figure is inflated due to abuse, i.e has been signed multiple times by the same persons. That is why we don't measure democracy via Online Petitions that can be easily manipulated and open to abuse.

Re: Brexit
 

I’m not using the figure to give weight to remaining, I’m saying if you break it down by constituency there’s a huge gulf between Labour constituencies (with the most and least signatories). Making a single manifesto pledge, for a party that didn’t win an election, rather irrelevant to it’s electorate.

Re: Brexit
 

Irrelevant that they didn't win the election, the MPs in Parliament won their seat in a Contest, standing on a platform of pledges, that got them elected and in place.

Re: Brexit
 

So your against a peoples vote then ?

Re: Brexit
 

When I leave my house, sometimes I take my coat sometimes I don't. Sometimes I take my wallet sometimes I don't. Sometimes I take my car keys sometimes I don't. Sometimes I take the dog, sometimes I don't. Leave doesn't mean leave in terms of Brexit, it's simply just isn't that simple if you want the best for the country.

Re: Brexit
 

BREAKING: EU eyeing up No Deal Preparations with the Northern Ireland Border. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar says he met people from border communities with German Chancellor Angela Merkel ahead of Brexit talks and says they discussed how the single market and an open border can be protected in a 'no-deal' Brexit. Source: Sky News.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:58 ----------

But regardless if you take belongings with you or not, truly fascinating that this wasn't, you're still leaving your house.

Re: Brexit
 

Has he gone out and left the lights on?;)

Re: Brexit
 

Of course but I'm leaving in different ways to do different things. Of course I could leave and never come back too.

Re: Brexit
 

Labour and Conservatives to continue talks tomorrow.

Re: Brexit
 

At least they have not fallen out thus so far.

Re: Brexit
 

Too early to kick the can down the road again. Needs to be the “last possible minute” or this ruse isn’t credible.

Re: Brexit
 

I’m truly bored of dating this now, but hey, one more time.

It was made Crystal clear prior to the referendum, that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market, Customs Union and ECJ jurisdiction. That was repeated over and over again and was in the famous leaflet delivered to each household. That is a fact and is unquestionable.

During the debate, Norway, Customs Union, EFTA were all discussed.

The reason I voted Remain was because I could see already on question time that politicians were talking up with some kind of Customs Union Deal, in which case there is no benefit in leaving, we’re better off in, in that scenario.

Then, It was only after the referendum, after the decision was made on the above information, that all these myriad of Brexits were purported. Soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, people’s Brexit, Jobs first Brexit blah blah ffffinnn blah.

The only true Brexit means leaving the SM, CU & ECJ anything else isn’t Brexit, we’d be better staying in.

Re: Brexit
 

At the same time it was also said we would get a deal, easily, and the Northern Irish border wouldn't be a problem. Neither of these things came true and I don't recall that Leaving with No Deal was on the table either.

May's deal came closest to this with a transitional period whilst we arrange a trade agreement and a backstop to the Irish border. The latter was going to on the island of Ireland only until we requested it be UK wide to appease the DUP. The DUP voted against it anyway and so did the ERG.

Re: Brexit
 

Sorry, Pierre, fact-checkers disagree with you on this. As does the substantial evidence in the linked Poke post in post #1137
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was...on-referendum/

Re: Brexit
 

Wasting your time evidenced fact doesn’t get a look in. Same for contradictory statements from Brexiteers.

Re: Brexit
 

I've always accepted that Leave won and I've always been against a second referendum. But I'm also been against the recent attempt at rewriting history to stipulate that a vote to leave was a vote for a no-deal Brexit or similar terms. Fortunately, we have independent fact-checking sites that can correct such matters.

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ----------

That suggests that Pierre's assertion was correct. Independent fact-checkers disagree.

Re: Brexit
 

we’ve got a deal. A bespoke deal, something that was said we wouldn’t get. But nobody wants it.

I honestly don’t recall that being a major discussion point, which was obviously a major error

well it wasn’t Because I was under the impression that A50 stipulated that a WA is required. So i’m Sure it was thought this would happen as a matter of course.

Re: Brexit
 

That’s disingenuous.

Striking independent trade deals was discussed extensively. Leaving the customs union is the technical measure required to fulfil that aim. Googling the phrase “customs union” and concluding that because the UK’s trade policy wasn’t discussed in those terms, it therefore was not discussed, is a pretty poor quality piece of work and leaves me wondering whether Full Fact’s work is similarly compromised in other ways.

Re: Brexit
 

That post ironically backs up what I said.

Re: Brexit
 

Government set to offer a “confirmatory referendum” vote.

Popcorn time. No more extensions or can kicking. What does Parliament want to do? Remain? Here’s the big chance.

Re: Brexit
 

There's nothing to evidence that FullFact only Googled "customs union" so your subsequent criticism of FullFact is on shaky ground.
Pierre said "It was made Crystal clear prior to the referendum, that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market, Customs Union and ECJ jurisdiction. That was repeated over and over again and was in the famous leaflet delivered to each household. That is a fact and is unquestionable."
It certainly was not in the leaflet and certainly was not crystal clear.

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

You could be correct but your post doesn't help anyone to understand why.

Re: Brexit
 

There’s nothing wrong with my post, nor with Pierre’s contention.

“Leave the customs union” and “strike independent trade deals” are tightly bound together. The former is required in order to achieve the latter.

All that has changed since 2016 is that we have moved on from discussing policy aims to understanding and discussing the measures required in order to enact them.

It is hardly surprising that people are now more familiar with some of the EU’s technical ways of working. Had anyone discussed “leaving the customs union” at length prior to the vote, then that discussion would have immediately required the explanation “that’s what we need to do in order to pursue an independent trade policy”, and that in itself would have been no more controversial than explaining that going to the shops involves driving the car.

This argument rests on the absurd idea that if you had said, prior to the vote, “pursuing an independent trade policy necessitates leaving the customs union” then people would’ve said, “oh well hang on there, we can’t do that, the customs union is the customs union, we’d better not mess with it”.

For the purposes of debate, there was nothing disingenuous about discussing trade policy rather than the measures necessary to achieve it and for the purposes of deciding whether the debate was illuminating, there is nothing disingenuous about claiming that the customs union issue was properly discussed.

Re: Brexit
 

Well yes. It's also a sign of how polarised the discussion has become that May's Deal was seen as 'not Brexit'. It was a deal that would have meant that as we're talking right now the UK would not have been a member of the European Union. We would in two years time also be out of the transition period and (almost) completely out of every facet of the EU.

All rejected because either people wanted a closer relationship or because of the backstop. The backstop required as a solution to a problem for which no one else had an answer anyway. Well, most people, in a remarkable stroke of bad luck all those geniuses who had an answer were stuck on radio phone in shows or internet forums rather than in the civil service.

Incidentally go back to when it was about to be voted on and I hesitantly accepted it. I didn't want to Leave and I thought her deal was pretty bad for my view of what the UK should be. However at least it was orderly and helped us move on. However if the ERG + others won't even accept that then why shouldn't Remain strike and take advantage? After all it's never going to stop with these people. Mark Francois will be on television every time the Government tried to compromise in a future trade agreement with the EU bleating on about the referendum.

I don't think it did but obviously we wanted one.

And that's the thing with the 'we knew what we were voting for'. I think most people thought we would leave with a deal. That's why they were talking about the German car companies making Germany sign a deal, it's why politicians talked about dealing with each country separately by-passing the EU and it's why the Vote Leave Campaign talked about the deal constantly. The Leave campaign was intentionally vague but pretty much every discussed outcome involved us getting a great deal.

Now thinking we would Leave with a deal but it's not very good so let's Leave without one is a different and valid opinion to hold but that's not the same as all the people who claim to have thought No Deal was what they originally voted for.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

To state that FullFact just performed a Google search without any evidence to show this is wrong. It was also not made crystal clear that we would leave the customs union as it was rarely mentioned. There is a world of difference between "crystal clear" and its being a necessity of independent trade deals.

Re: Brexit
 

Fair enough although it obviously isn't mandatory to complete since no deal is a prospect.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, but the point being that before the referendum “no deal” was not an issue as it shouldn’t happen.

The deal should have been conducted between the Government and the EU, but Gina Miller stopped that. So here we’re are.

Re: Brexit
 

I would argue Gina Miller gave Parliament a chance to sort this mess out but they deferred it until now. Parliament could have insisted May bring out the starting position and the desired outcome before issuing Article 50. The process would have been a lot easier had she the support of Parliament before hand. Instead they only insisted on this Meaningful Vote. Obviously the political reality at the time was not good for that but in hindsight, would have been good.

Re: Brexit
 

Ha! No no no and more than thrice no. Millers intervention took the power away from the government to negotiate a deal and implement it. Any deal had to be voted on, so we got this bullshillls. So now we’re here.

Before the miller ruling, it was only the Tory knobheads we head to beat, afterwards it was the whole Parliament cocknockers.....that’s when Brexit ended

Re: Brexit
 

Let me get this straight, you believed Dave Cameron and his leave everything scare scenario but you didn't believe mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Farage who all campaigned on staying in some sort of single market or customs union and you didn't believe a lot of the newspapers that ran stories and opinion pieces everyday espousing the same, they all said we'd get a better deal and the reason we can't ask them and have to make do with you is because their all indulging in a bit of revisionism where they now claim it was obvious all along that the only option would be to leave without a deal. After all that I can't see how it's credible to claim you're sure all 17.4 million voters were sure what they were voting for and weren't duped or unduly influenced in anyway.

Re: Brexit
 

We weren't duped or unduly influenced in any way by the EU, that's a fact :p:

:D

Re: Brexit
 

They did keep well out of the referendum.

Re: Brexit
 

Laughable. They got their cohorts to do their dirty work for them. George Soros, Tony Blair, President Obama, et all.

---------- Post added at 08:27 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------

We’ve had this one sided and boring discussion before. You tell me how many Remainers/people were duped by the threat of Barack Obama’s back of queue bullshit.

Some of you Remainers go on about the leave side duping others during the campaigns but act as if the Remain side acted totally squeaky clean, clue: they did not, they told absolute porkies, in all my discussions since Referendum result, I have never denied my side pulled some stunts, but again it’s all one sided rubbish with some of you Remainers. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

I’m not actually saying anyone was duped. Only that it was a broad, inconsistent, church as demonstrated by the words of leading Brexiteers.

I’ve actually said in the thread before I’d be happy to leave if there was an actual plan, over maybe five years, to prepare for it.

Re: Brexit
 

Except that Theresa May has got a deal.

It's Parliament that won't accept it, not the EU!

Re: Brexit
 

May has written asking for an extension until 30th June with us leaving when a deal is agreed. We will start the work to hold European Elections just in case. Speculation is the EU might offer until March 2020 but again with us leaving when a deal is agreed.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 ----------

My mistake, seems like the EU is offering until March 2020. To avoid these constant cliff edges.

Re: Brexit
 

The EU is not offering that at all, Tusk is recommending the 27 Member States allow for this extra year, they could still veto it - but May is asking for 30th June. We’ll be partaking in European Elections. Bring on the Eurosceptic MEP’s just what the EU doesn’t need.

Re: Brexit
 

Excellent news. Gives us more time to facilitate the inevitable second referendum.

Re: Brexit
 

Here's a nice summary and many, many clips of Leave campaigners and others prior to the referendum in reply to Piers Morgan who takes the position that no deal is the only way to leave the EU - https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/sta...47733300842497

Re: Brexit
 

What second referendum? as there won't be one...

Re: Brexit
 

It’s inevitable now. If no deal was viable we’d be out. If there was support for a plan we’d have had it. We’ve been to the cliff edge and walked back.

Re: Brexit
 

A second referendum will solve nothing...