Cable Forum
Page 31 of 40 « First 2127282930 31 32333435 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Brexit (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33707507)

1andrew1 29-05-2019 15:33
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997042)
Wrong as usual HUGH.
That's a bit mean of you, mate.

mrmistoffelees 29-05-2019 15:37
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997044)
Who's to say they wouldn't? That is exactly what I am saying, isn't it? However, you have put the cart before the horse. The new PM would need to present all the arguments and all the alternatives to Parliament first and get their endorsement. That, in fact, is the main hurdle, not the EU!
Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too

nomadking 29-05-2019 15:44
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
The figures, from the UK's current account published by the Office for National Statistics, say that, before the application of the rebate, the UK's gross contribution was £19.6bn a year - about £376m a week.

Mr K 29-05-2019 15:53
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997046)
That's a bit mean of you, mate.
The 'wrong as usual' is a commonly used bit of abuse on here. Seems to have originated from 'the top', then spread....

Angua 29-05-2019 15:56
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35997049)
Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too
Think one of the issues is the NI Border & GFA. That easily forgotten part of the UK that would have a direct border with the EU.

pip08456 29-05-2019 15:59
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997046)
That's a bit mean of you, mate.
You obviously don't know about his supposed mind reading abilities.:)

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997054)
The 'wrong as usual' is a commonly used bit of abuse on here. Seems to have originated from 'the top', then spread....
No abuse as such just a statement of truth.

OLD BOY 29-05-2019 16:05
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35997049)
Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too
No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35997056)
Think one of the issues is the NI Border & GFA. That easily forgotten part of the UK that would have a direct border with the EU.
The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?

pip08456 29-05-2019 16:09
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997060)
No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?
I will. The division in this country is partially down to them. They want to keep us in by whatever means.

Angua 29-05-2019 16:19
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997060)
No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?
No. The EU has to protect the RoI as a member of the EU. We are leaving, what happens to us will be on our heads alone.

pip08456 29-05-2019 16:29
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35997064)
No. The EU has to protect the RoI as a member of the EU. We are leaving, what happens to us will be on our heads alone.
Yes and accepted.

mrmistoffelees 29-05-2019 16:36
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997067)
Yes and accepted.
But not by all. hence the predicament in which we find ourselves.

pip08456 29-05-2019 16:51
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35997068)
But not by all. hence the predicament in which we find ourselves.
I am not in a predicament.

ianch99 29-05-2019 16:59
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997020)
You don't understand. Article 24 provides for the status quo to be maintained while a trade agreement is being negotiated. Once again, you are putting forward problems that don't exist.

Why can you not post solutions instead of objections? That would be much more constructive and stop this thread going around in circles.
But it is you who are resetting the clock again! If only we just ask the EU to agree to the GATT Article 24 procedure, we will be home again in time for tea & cake. It's so easy & obvious, I cannot believe why no one has asked them before. I mean all that time, effort and money spent by the Government detailing why No Deal is bad for the country when all that had to go to BrexitCentral.com, ring up the EU and ask them to sign up to Article 24.

pip08456 29-05-2019 17:05
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35997073)
But it is you who are resetting the clock again! If only we just ask the EU to agree to the GATT Article 24 procedure, we will be home again in time for tea & cake. It's so easy & obvious, I cannot believe why no one has asked them before. I mean all that time, effort and money spent by the Government detailing why No Deal is bad for the country when all that had to go to BrexitCentral.com, ring up the EU and ask them to sign up to Article 24.
Perhaps the better question would be.

Why the hell have you been going on about having to have to have this withdrawal agreement in place before we can talk about any deal. BTW we've also made sure you can't leave until we say so!

jfman 29-05-2019 17:24
Re: Brexit
 
Are we planning on making contributions to the EU in this ten year transition? Can we strike glorious trade deals with the USA?

jonbxx 29-05-2019 17:35
Re: Brexit
 
I can see how Article XXIV is an attractive solution to the question of goods imports and exports and yes, it is theoretically possible but it answers one of many issues only. It doesn't answer issues like;
  • Citizens rights (EU citizens in UK and UK citizens in EU)
  • The Good Friday Agreement
  • Money already committed in the current EU budget
  • Arbitration in the matters above

Yes, we could go to the EU proposing Article XXIV but you can be pretty sure they will ask about the above and boom, we are back where we started.

Remember 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'?

Hugh 29-05-2019 17:42
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997042)
Wrong as usual HUGH.



To be determined means it is not a crime as yet but may be if the crown court sets a precedent.

She has done a Pontius Pilate and passed it on to someone else to decide.
The judge believes there is Prima Facie evidence of a possible crime having been committed, and that it should go to a court case.

I did not say Boris had committed a crime, I stated that misconduct in public office was a crime.

Boris has not been found guilty or not guilty, because no court case has yet happened, and under our legal system (quite rightly), he is innocent until proven guilty. He has, however, been accused, of a crime (misconduct in public office) so it would appear your statement is not based in actuality - misconduct in public office is a criminal offence, and Boris has been accused of it.

mrmistoffelees 29-05-2019 18:00
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997072)
I am not in a predicament.
Well, so long are YOU'RE OK.......

pip08456 29-05-2019 18:03
Re: Brexit
 
1 Attachment(s)
OK Hugh.

Hugh 29-05-2019 19:19
Re: Brexit
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997084)
OK Hugh.
OK, Pip

OLD BOY 29-05-2019 19:29
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35997077)
I can see how Article XXIV is an attractive solution to the question of goods imports and exports and yes, it is theoretically possible but it answers one of many issues only. It doesn't answer issues like;
  • Citizens rights (EU citizens in UK and UK citizens in EU)
  • The Good Friday Agreement
  • Money already committed in the current EU budget
  • Arbitration in the matters above

Yes, we could go to the EU proposing Article XXIV but you can be pretty sure they will ask about the above and boom, we are back where we started.

Remember 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'?
The fact that we don't need a solution to the Good Friday Agreement border issue for 10 years is surely a bonus.

The other bullet points can be resolved separately with the EU.

jonbxx 29-05-2019 19:55
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997094)
The fact that we don't need a solution to the Good Friday Agreement border issue for 10 years is surely a bonus.

The other bullet points can be resolved separately with the EU.
I see that Article XXIV would cover the GFA in terms of tariffs but not the single market or rules of origin. And what about cross border services? If we make other agreements, then aren't we slipping away from an Article XXIV Brexit and going back to some kind of withdrawal agreement?

I am more than willing to be surprised but I can't see the EU agreeing to Article XXIV without a number of other conditions in place which then means we're not in Article XXIV territory any more.

TheDaddy 29-05-2019 19:57
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35996958)
Maybe it should be a matter of law, then the politicians couldn't get away with all the porky pies.
Such a law would be worth all this imo especially if we could revamp the voting system whilst we were at it, people bang on about protecting our democracy but why would you want to protect it when it allows for millions of votes to be wasted in safe seats or for a party to get 5 million votes and no mps, we aren't a two party country anymore and that should be represented proportionally

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
What?

And tie up our judicial system for every politician that lies...

Okay let's get Tony Blair for the Iraq War.

Let's get Nick Clegg for lying about not increasing tuition fees...

Let's go that extra mile and prosecute all these Remainers who said on TV there should not be another referendum and that the first should be honoured but are now saying there should be one...

The whole thing is just Banana republic crazy, this is 2019, not the 1930's FFS.
Yes let's just let them of with it instead and carry on as we are, then when voters are completely disillusioned and disenfranchised it'll just be the fanatics that bother to vote, bright future with momentum running the show and I'm all for bliar going on trial, not sure how Clegg would be held accountable seeing as he was never in power but why not let them fight that out in court regardless

nomadking 29-05-2019 20:00
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35997102)
I see that Article XXIV would cover the GFA in terms of tariffs but not the single market or rules of origin. And what about cross border services? If we make other agreements, then aren't we slipping away from an Article XXIV Brexit and going back to some kind of withdrawal agreement?

I am more than willing to be surprised but I can't see the EU agreeing to Article XXIV without a number of other conditions in place which then means we're not in Article XXIV territory any more.
There is no restriction on non-EU compliant products being in the EU. In some cases it is an EU company making them. At the very least the difference between UK complaint and EU compliant is going to be minimal.

OLD BOY 29-05-2019 20:07
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35997102)
I see that Article XXIV would cover the GFA in terms of tariffs but not the single market or rules of origin. And what about cross border services? If we make other agreements, then aren't we slipping away from an Article XXIV Brexit and going back to some kind of withdrawal agreement?

I am more than willing to be surprised but I can't see the EU agreeing to Article XXIV without a number of other conditions in place which then means we're not in Article XXIV territory any more.
Article 24 does not prevent countries from agreeing on other matters.

1andrew1 29-05-2019 20:58
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997107)
Article 24 does not prevent countries from agreeing on other matters.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35997103)
Such a law would be worth all this imo especially if we could revamp the voting system whilst we were at it, people bang on about protecting our democracy but why would you want to protect it when it allows for millions of votes to be wasted in safe seats or for a party to get 5 million votes and no mps, we aren't a two party country anymore and that should be represented proportionally

Yes let's just let them of with it instead and carry on as we are, then when voters are completely disillusioned and disenfranchised it'll just be the fanatics that bother to vote, bright future with momentum running the show and I'm all for bliar going on trial, not sure how Clegg would be held accountable seeing as he was never in power but why not let them fight that out in court regardless
:gpoint:

Mick 29-05-2019 21:59
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35997034)
A District Judge, with 41 years legal experience, disagrees with you.
And you know I am going to say I stand by my posts so the above is irrelevant.

A politician lying is a crime is it? -

Don't think so, otherwise we'd be locking up every bloody one of them and you know that is what I meant. But nice try at sub diffusion. :rolleyes:

jonbxx 29-05-2019 22:16
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35997104)
There is no restriction on non-EU compliant products being in the EU. In some cases it is an EU company making them. At the very least the difference between UK complaint and EU compliant is going to be minimal.
Oh, of course. The company I work for makes UL certified equipment for the US market in Europe with no problems at all. Those products just cannot be sold in Europe.

When (or if?) Brexit happens, it would make sense to harmonise UK technical standard with EU ones but whether that is politically feasible or not is another question. See vacuum cleaner efficiency standards for example. If we don’t harmonise, a small divergence of standards may make UK goods unsellable in the EU.

1andrew1 29-05-2019 22:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997123)
And you know I am going to say I stand by my posts so the above is irrelevant.

A politician lying is a crime is it? -

Don't think so, otherwise we'd be locking up every bloody one of them and you know that is what I meant. But nice try at sub diffusion. :rolleyes:
A lot of politicians would indeed fail the honesty test.
It's the fact that he held public office at the time that is the issue.

Mick 29-05-2019 22:39
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997125)
A lot of politicians would indeed fail the honesty test.
It's the fact that he held public office at the time that is the issue.
So have many others that have lied. Have they received a summons?

No - this is political hit job and a poor one at that because it's going to HELP BOOST Boris, not hinder him.

1andrew1 29-05-2019 22:46
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997129)
So have many others that have lied. Have they received a summons?

No - this is political hit job and a poor one at that because it's going to HELP BOOST Boris, not hinder him.
The reason that Boris has been summonsed is that he is named in the private prosecution. If you wanted to summonse someone else, you too could do the same thing.
I agree with your point that it may help Boris, but that's a small price to pay if it increases democracy.

RichardCoulter 29-05-2019 23:27
Re: Brexit
 
The One Show earlier this evening showed British people returning to the UK after living abroad.

The reasons given, apart from the uncertainty due to Brexit, was that they are finding that the attitude is one of "you're leaving the EU, so leave, get out then"!

Damien 29-05-2019 23:43
Re: Brexit
 
Change of plan: Let's leave. Never liked Europe anyway. Waste of time. Screw everything.

jfman 29-05-2019 23:45
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35997134)
The One Show earlier this evening showed British people returning to the UK after living abroad.

The reasons given, apart from the uncertainty due to Brexit, was that they are finding that the attitude is one of "you're leaving the EU, so leave, get out then"!
Sounds made up. Fears over healthcare will be the real answer.

Angua 30-05-2019 09:23
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997136)
Sounds made up. Fears over healthcare will be the real answer.
Is that really surprising?
Ironically one of the benefits of living in warmer climates is fewer health issues, so they come back to the UK, adding pressure to the already stretched NHS and Care system. Nice own goal.

ianch99 30-05-2019 09:47
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35997135)
Change of plan: Let's leave. Never liked Europe anyway. Waste of time. Screw everything.
Sorry, no plans allowed here :) Only aspirations ...

OLD BOY 30-05-2019 10:01
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997125)
A lot of politicians would indeed fail the honesty test.
It's the fact that he held public office at the time that is the issue.
Andrew, this is not the first and won't be the last. This is yet another blatent attempt to circumvent the result of the referendum and kill off Brexit. Everybody can see that, no-one is being fooled.

---------- Post added at 09:01 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35997155)
Sorry, no plans allowed here :) Only aspirations ...
I've never seen such wingeing and tantrums from losers in my life (excluding under-5s).

ianch99 30-05-2019 10:13
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997156)
I've never seen such wingeing and tantrums from losers in my life (excluding under-5s).
Bless ...

Mick 30-05-2019 10:44
Re: Brexit
 
Enough. Unless folk are opting for a forum holiday.....

Mr K 30-05-2019 11:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997129)
So have many others that have lied. Have they received a summons?

No - this is political hit job and a poor one at that because it's going to HELP BOOST Boris, not hinder him.
Can't seem him getting on the ballot paper, he maybe be popular with the Tory members but MPs don't like him, and they get to decide who are the final 2 candidates. With this hanging over him, it'll be the final straw. It's all a terrible shame I must say, ;)

Oily snake Gove will come from behind and grab the crown at the last minute, Backstabbing everyone else he promised to support (again).
https://images.app.goo.gl/9z2nPwbrkynnepgE7

1andrew1 30-05-2019 11:41
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997156)
Andrew, this is not the first and won't be the last. This is yet another blatent attempt to circumvent the result of the referendum and kill off Brexit. Everybody can see that, no-one is being fooled
Why would ensuring high standards in office kill off Brexit?

ianch99 30-05-2019 13:39
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997166)
Why would ensuring high standards in office kill off Brexit?
Surely, this individual is doing the country a great service. Look at what Boris has done & said in the past. Seriously, he would make this country a laughing stock.

OLD BOY 30-05-2019 13:41
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997166)
Why would ensuring high standards in office kill off Brexit?
That is not the purpose of this prosection, and this has been admitted.

nomadking 30-05-2019 14:05
Re: Brexit
 
Link(paywall)

Quote:
Marcus Ball: How Boris Johnson's accuser over Brexit spent donations on self-defence classes and special cupcakes
Quote:
The Remainer entrepreneur who crowdfunded £370,000 to prosecute Boris Johnson spent nearly £50,000 of the donations on himself – including self-defence classes, a luxury flat and branded cupcakes.

GrimUpNorth 30-05-2019 14:06
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997188)
That is not the purpose of this prosection, and this has been admitted.
Hi OB, where and when was it admitted? Have only been skimming through posts the last few days so could well have missed whatever it is you're quoting.

nomadking 30-05-2019 14:13
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 35997190)
Hi OB, where and when was it admitted? Have only been skimming through posts the last few days so could well have missed whatever it is you're quoting.
The "campaign" is called "Brexit Justice". That's sort of a big clue.


Quote:
He founded Brexit Justice in June 2016 and has been “working relentlessly to bring an end to lying in politics ever since”, according to the Brexit Justice website.

1andrew1 30-05-2019 14:18
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997188)
That is not the purpose of this prosection, and this has been admitted.
I don't know if it is or not but the consequences should be better standards.

I think it's poor form if Brexit politicians play the "I can't be held accountable for anything as they're just trying to stop Brexit" card every time they're pulled up on anything.

Mr K 30-05-2019 14:34
Re: Brexit
 
Interesting....
Quote:
Germany will block another delay to Brexit at the European Council unless the UK announces a second referendum or general election by October, the Bundestag's foreign affairs committee chair has warned.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...s-public-vote/

pip08456 30-05-2019 14:41
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997196)
Good for Germany, poking their nose into our internal politics is what is wanted at this time.

Hugh 30-05-2019 14:47
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997197)
Good for Germany, poking their nose into our internal politics is what is wanted at this time.
They have said they will not support an extension unless something has changed - sounds like they are supporting EU politics, the impact of which will be also on British politics.

Who would have thought that any decisions made by one of the parties in negotiations would have an impact on the other?

nomadking 30-05-2019 15:32
Re: Brexit
 
Silly question I know, but what makes Germany think that what they say, goes for everybody in the EU?

pip08456 30-05-2019 15:37
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35997200)
Silly question I know, but what makes Germany think that what they say, goes for everybody in the EU?
It doesn't have to go for everybody. If Germany block an extention (any one of the 27 can do so) then they have ensured we leave.

Mick 30-05-2019 15:55
Re: Brexit
 
Bring on another Referendum - Brexit Party trounced all the other parties no problem, including Lib Dems who ran on a stop Brexit campaign. They were just short of 2 million votes from Brexit Party.

Peston tweeted a graph before that if the European Election results were repeated at a General Election, Brexit Party would have a Majority government, they would have 414 Seats in Parliament. Bring on GE or bring on Second Referendum, we'll teach these ignorant Remainers that refuse to accept the result that the UK wants to leave and we have not changed our minds and never will!

Becareful what you wish for haha!!! :D

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...64912713867265

Pierre 30-05-2019 16:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35997198)
They have said they will not support an extension unless something has changed
Great, all we need then is Parliament to keep functioning as it has been and we will leave in October.

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

In regards to Boris, I'm no legal expert but I think there is a major flaw in the prosecution of Boris and that is.........the £350M statement wasn't a lie.

Case closed, my fee will be in the post.

ianch99 30-05-2019 16:35
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997202)
Bring on another Referendum - Brexit Party trounced all the other parties no problem, including Lib Dems who ran on a stop Brexit campaign. They were just short of 2 million votes from Brexit Party.

Peston tweeted a graph before that if the European Election results were repeated at a General Election, Brexit Party would have a Majority government, they would have 414 Seats in Parliament. Bring on GE or bring on Second Referendum, we'll teach these ignorant Remainers that refuse to accept the result that the UK wants to leave and we have not changed our minds and never will!

Becareful what you wish for haha!!! :D

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...64912713867265
I thought we were not supposed to use name calling? I thought we had put Ignorant Remainers and Stupid Leavers behind us ..

Hugh 30-05-2019 17:11
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997202)
Bring on another Referendum - Brexit Party trounced all the other parties no problem, including Lib Dems who ran on a stop Brexit campaign. They were just short of 2 million votes from Brexit Party.

Peston tweeted a graph before that if the European Election results were repeated at a General Election, Brexit Party would have a Majority government, they would have 414 Seats in Parliament. Bring on GE or bring on Second Referendum, we'll teach these ignorant Remainers that refuse to accept the result that the UK wants to leave and we have not changed our minds and never will!

Becareful what you wish for haha!!! :D

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...64912713867265
Here is the source of the data Robert Peston quoted from.

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrishanr...76766903672832

The author actually states
Quote:
Chris Hanretty @chrishanretty

But people vote differently in different elections. This is a second order election with a different electorate, different voting system, on different issues, with different parties. I would be surprised if the Brexit Party got four seats in #GE20XX, let alone four hundred

7:01 am · 30 May 2019 · Twitter for Android
From the author’s blog
Quote:
These figures on their own tell us almost nothing about future general elections. I estimate that the Brexit party won the most votes in over four hundred Westminster constituencies. The Brexit Party will not win four hundred seats in a future general election. European Parliament elections are different from Westminster elections in many ways. The electorate is different, the voting system is different, the parties competing are different, the issues discussed (if any) are different, and the levels of campaign activity and interest are different. If European Parliament elections results were a good guide to subsequent general elections, UKIP would have won scores of seats in 2015 rather than just one.

Mythica 30-05-2019 17:56
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997202)
Bring on another Referendum - Brexit Party trounced all the other parties no problem, including Lib Dems who ran on a stop Brexit campaign. They were just short of 2 million votes from Brexit Party.

Peston tweeted a graph before that if the European Election results were repeated at a General Election, Brexit Party would have a Majority government, they would have 414 Seats in Parliament. Bring on GE or bring on Second Referendum, we'll teach these ignorant Remainers that refuse to accept the result that the UK wants to leave and we have not changed our minds and never will!

Becareful what you wish for haha!!! :D

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...64912713867265
Nice, name calling? I'm not ignorant, I just have a different opinion to you.

daveeb 30-05-2019 18:01
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997202)
Bring on another Referendum - Brexit Party trounced all the other parties no problem, including Lib Dems who ran on a stop Brexit campaign. They were just short of 2 million votes from Brexit Party.

Peston tweeted a graph before that if the European Election results were repeated at a General Election, Brexit Party would have a Majority government, they would have 414 Seats in Parliament. Bring on GE or bring on Second Referendum, we'll teach these ignorant Remainers that refuse to accept the result that the UK wants to leave and we have not changed our minds and never will!

Becareful what you wish for haha!!! :D

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...64912713867265

I'm an ignorant remainer that certainly wishes for it ;)

Mick 30-05-2019 18:08
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35997219)
Nice, name calling? I'm not ignorant, I just have a different opinion to you.
If you wish to ignore the democratic decision from 2016, like "some" Remainers do - then you are ignorant.

1andrew1 30-05-2019 18:08
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35997203)
Great, all we need then is Parliament to keep functioning as it has been and we will leave in October.

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

In regards to Boris, I'm no legal expert but I think there is a major flaw in the prosecution of Boris and that is.........the £350M statement wasn't a lie.

Case closed, my fee will be in the post.
Boris was told repeatedly the figure was wrong by the ONS and to stop saying it. As a responsible public servant, he should have done so.

Mick 30-05-2019 18:09
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35997220)
I'm an ignorant remainer that certainly wishes for it ;)
What so you can lose again and then demand another ? :rolleyes:

1andrew1 30-05-2019 18:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997202)
Bring on another Referendum - Brexit Party trounced all the other parties no problem, including Lib Dems who ran on a stop Brexit campaign. They were just short of 2 million votes from Brexit Party.

Peston tweeted a graph before that if the European Election results were repeated at a General Election, Brexit Party would have a Majority government, they would have 414 Seats in Parliament. Bring on GE or bring on Second Referendum, we'll teach these ignorant Remainers that refuse to accept the result that the UK wants to leave and we have not changed our minds and never will!

Becareful what you wish for haha!!! :D

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...64912713867265
You might have changed your mind on a second referendum but I haven't. But I think you're weakening your arguments with the term "ignorant Remainers". Whilst I don't agree with a second referendum as things stand, I respect the views of those who want one be they leavers or remainers.

Mythica 30-05-2019 18:15
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997224)
If you wish to ignore the democratic decision from 2016, like "some" Remainers do - then you are ignorant.
I believe (not want) a second referendum is fair based on the knowledge we now have compared to 2016. I'm not ignorant, my opinion is just different from yours.

Or

You're an ignorant leaver who at all costs wants to possibly destroy this country simply because you hate the EU.

Pick which one, it's your choice.

Mick 30-05-2019 18:27
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997230)
You might have changed your mind on a second referendum but I haven't. But I think you're weakening your arguments with the term "ignorant Remainers". Whilst I don't agree with a second referendum as things stand, I respect the views of those who want one be they leavers or remainers.
Don't try take moral high ground all of a sudden.

Us Brexiteers have been chastised multiple times on here and usually by the same posters.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35997233)
I believe (not want) a second referendum is fair based on the knowledge we now have compared to 2016. I'm not ignorant, my opinion is just different from yours.

Or

You're an ignorant leaver who at all costs wants to possibly destroy this country simply because you hate the EU.

Pick which one, it's your choice.
A second referendum is not fair - it's just an attempt by Remainers to undo the first one. But I do welcome one now that I have a very strong feeling, leave would win again. But you lot would still stamp your feet and demand another when you lose yet again. :rolleyes:

The knowledge we have now is no different to what we had in 2016, I don't think you should start bringing up this rubbish and very weak argument again. It holds no weight to it at all.

If you want to believe the crap about leaving the EU destroying this country, then more fool you for believing that rubbish.

You are also conveniently forgetting that The Brexit Party won more votes than any other "Stop Brexit" party, but then Remainers thought they were trying to be clever by totalling up all the votes for the Remain parties until, I provided the totals tally for Leave parties that showed there were far more votes for leave.

Fancy leave winning again despite an erroneous claim that we know more now than we did back then - this is and remains a false narrative.

Mythica 30-05-2019 18:31
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997234)
Don't try take moral high ground all of a sudden.

Us Brexiteers have been chastised multiple times on here and usually by the same posters.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------



A second referendum is not fair - it's just an attempt by Remainers to undo the first one. But I do welcome one now that I have a very strong feeling, leave would win again. But you lot would still stamp your feet and demand another when you lose yet again. :rolleyes:

The knowledge we have now is no different to what we had in 2016, I don't think you should start bringing up this rubbish and very weak argument again. It holds no weight to it at all.

If you want to believe the crap about leaving the EU destroying this country, then more fool you for believing that rubbish.

You are also conveniently forgetting that The Brexit Party won more votes than any other "Stop Brexit" party, but then Remainers thought they were trying to be clever by totalling up all the votes for the Remain parties until, I provided the totals tally for Leave parties that showed there were far more votes for leave.

Fancy leave winning again despite an erroneous claim that we know more now than we did back then - this is and remains a false narrative.
I gave you a choice. I'm not ignorant or you're ignorant. My answer to you is I'm not ignorant for believing a second referendum is fair. If you want to believe I'm ignorant then you choose the second option of you being ignorant. That was your choice, not mine.

jfman 30-05-2019 18:31
Re: Brexit
 
I, for one, welcome Mick’s change of heart on a second referendum.

Quote:
Bring on another Referendum

Mick 30-05-2019 18:42
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997237)
I, for one, welcome Mick’s change of heart on a second referendum.
There is no change of heart, I think calls for a second referendum are repulsive, I am merely saying that should UK be put through one again - Leave would win again, the issue I have is that you Remainers would then demand another, you know make the best of 5... :rolleyes:

jfman 30-05-2019 18:51
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997238)
There is no change of heart, I think calls for a second referendum are repulsive, I am merely saying that should UK be put through one again - Leave would win again, the issue I have is that you Remainers would then demand another, you know make the best of 5... :rolleyes:
I’ve repeated many times I’d have no issues if leave won another referendum. All of the alleged weaknesses of the 2016 one are gone with another.

The straightforward answer to bitter remainers after a further referendum would be “tough shit”. You lost a clear leave/remain question, twice. In full awareness of facts. It also gives MPs the way to avoid blame with the electorate if it does go badly - they are carrying out a clearly mandated instruction in full knowledge that “no deal” is a likely outcome.

The 2016 referendum will never legitimately achieve the above.

1andrew1 30-05-2019 19:04
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997234)
Don't try take moral high ground all of a sudden.

Us Brexiteers have been chastised multiple times on here and usually by the same posters.
People aren't chastising one another, they're engaging in debate. You may not agree with them but it would make for a boring forum if everyone did. Let's all respect one another's opinions and go easy on unhelpful adjectives like ignorant. ;)

Mick 30-05-2019 19:06
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997240)
I’ve repeated many times I’d have no issues if leave won another referendum. All of the alleged weaknesses of the 2016 one are gone with another.

The straightforward answer to bitter remainers after a further referendum would be “tough shit”. You lost a clear leave/remain question, twice. In full awareness of facts. It also gives MPs the way to avoid blame with the electorate if it does go badly - they are carrying out a clearly mandated instruction in full knowledge that “no deal” is a likely outcome.

The 2016 referendum will never legitimately achieve the above.
There are no weaknesses of the first referendum - the campaigns on both sides played by the same rules - they both lied to get votes and it would happen again in another campaign in yet another referendum.

It shouldn't take two rounds of votes, well, actually three, actually four, to be precise, to deliver a clear decision and that was to leave. (2016 Referendum, Snap Election and Euro Elections just gone and any potential new referendum).

ianch99 30-05-2019 19:07
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997224)
If you wish to ignore the democratic decision from 2016, like "some" Remainers do - then you are ignorant.
ignore - refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

ignorant - lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated

Nah ..

Mythica 30-05-2019 19:10
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997243)
There are no weaknesses of the first referendum - the campaigns on both sides played by the same rules - they both lied to get votes and it would happen again in another campaign in yet another referendum.

It shouldn't take two rounds of votes, well, actually three, actually four, to be precise, to deliver a clear decision and that was to leave. (2016 Referendum, Snap Election and Euro Elections just gone).
We wouldn't need another campaign if there was another referendum. Simple leave or remain question.

Mick 30-05-2019 19:18
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35997245)
We wouldn't need another campaign if there was another referendum. Simple leave or remain question.
You cannot have a democratic process without some form of campaigning.

Paul 30-05-2019 19:18
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35997245)
We wouldn't need another campaign if there was another referendum.
"Need" is irrelevant, another referendum would come with another set of campaigns, by both sides.

Mythica 30-05-2019 19:24
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997246)
You cannot have a democratic process without some form of campaigning.
Of course you can, it's been in the news for 3 years.

Mick 30-05-2019 19:30
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35997248)
Of course you can, it's been in the news for 3 years.
So, you're saying as soon as legislation is passed for a new referendum, there will be no time to run a campaign, it will be like, a law passes and they have the vote the day after?

It just doesn't work like that - It took months to organise, as soon as a referendum is given the go ahead, campaigns will start, you cannot stop them.

Mythica 30-05-2019 19:33
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997250)
So, you're saying as soon as legislation is passed for a new referendum, there will be no time to run a campaign, it will be like, a law passes and they have the vote the day after?

It just doesn't work like that - It took months to organise, as soon as a referendum is given the go ahead, campaigns will start, you cannot stop them.
I never said any such thing. I simply said we wouldn't need another campaign if we had another referendum.

Mick 30-05-2019 19:40
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35997251)
I never said any such thing. I simply said we wouldn't need another campaign if we had another referendum.
You're missing my point.

If a decision is passed to have another referendum then there will be campaigns for both sides, they cannot be stopped. The vote will not occur right away, after a decision has been made, so each side will campaign until the vote happens.

jfman 30-05-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997243)
There are no weaknesses of the first referendum - the campaigns on both sides played by the same rules - they both lied to get votes and it would happen again in another campaign in yet another referendum.

It shouldn't take two rounds of votes, well, actually three, actually four, to be precise, to deliver a clear decision and that was to leave. (2016 Referendum, Snap Election and Euro Elections just gone and any potential new referendum).
It wasn’t a clear decision, neither was any of the subsequent elections a de facto referendum.

If you’re confident of winning I don’t see why you’re so strongly against. We won’t leave without a further referendum so the sooner we do so the better.

pip08456 30-05-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997254)
You're missing my point.

If a decision is passed to have another referendum then there will be campaigns for both sides, they cannot be stopped. The vote will not occur right away, after a decision has been made, so each side will campaign until the vote happens.
All immaterial anyway as there isn't the time to get it through Parliament before 31/10.

denphone 30-05-2019 20:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35997247)
"Need" is irrelevant, another referendum would come with another set of campaigns, by both sides.
And another set of lies l would imagine..

jfman 30-05-2019 20:15
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997256)
All immaterial anyway as there isn't the time to get it through Parliament before 31/10.
Haha. The amount of things I was told were not possible prior to 29th March.

Mick 30-05-2019 20:18
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997255)
It wasn’t a clear decision, neither was any of the subsequent elections a de facto referendum.

If you’re confident of winning I don’t see why you’re so strongly against. We won’t leave without a further referendum so the sooner we do so the better.
Because having further votes just delays what was decided and we don't keep having the same votes, over and over just to suit the losing side and it was a clear decision, I don't know how you can say it was not, more than a million more people chose to leave than remain, so we must leave.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997259)
Haha. The amount of things I was told were not possible prior to 29th March.
The things that you were told were correct - the government chose to extend, it did not have to abide by parliament, the votes were not legally binding.

Mythica 30-05-2019 20:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997254)
You're missing my point.

If a decision is passed to have another referendum then there will be campaigns for both sides, they cannot be stopped. The vote will not occur right away, after a decision has been made, so each side will campaign until the vote happens.
Point taken, I still think it's fair and democratic after everything we've been through in these three years to have another referendum.

jfman 30-05-2019 20:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997260)
Because having further votes just delays what was decided and we don't keep having the same votes, over and over just to suit the losing side and it was a clear decision, I don't know how you can say it was not, more than a million more people chose to leave than remain, so we must leave.
A further vote would have, in the long run, removed the need for the present extension period. Carrying out one now would give us an assured position for October when right now, without knowing who is PM and what Parliament will do, we presently do not.

Mick 30-05-2019 20:35
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997263)
A further vote would have, in the long run, removed the need for the present extension period. Carrying out one now would give us an assured position for October when right now, without knowing who is PM and what Parliament will do, we presently do not.
We do not need another vote - we had one in 2016 - we voted to leave. No matter how many times you try skate around this, it won't resolve anything when leave wins again, unless as I have said previously, you then stamp your feet for another one when you lose again.

Carth 30-05-2019 20:40
Re: Brexit
 
I certainly don't want another referendum


I'm quite happy, possibly even ecstatic, at the thought of being refused yet another farcical extension in October :D

1andrew1 30-05-2019 21:02
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997256)
All immaterial anyway as there isn't the time to get it through Parliament before 31/10.
You said that last time and they found time.

pip08456 30-05-2019 21:07
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997268)
You said that last time and they found time.
Really, I'd check what was passed if I were you.:)

jfman 30-05-2019 21:16
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997269)
Really, I'd check what was passed if I were you.:)
That's semantics. Parliament found a way to delay Brexit. The fact the Government enabled it is a red herring. the vote of no confidence option always exists and will continue to exist.

Mick 30-05-2019 21:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997270)
That's semantics. Parliament found a way to stop Brexit. The fact the Government enabled it is a red herring. the vote of no confidence option always exists and will continue to exist.
No it is not a red herring - the government could have left it really wanted to have done on 29th March.

Btw - It has not stopped Brexit, why do you keep posting lies?

jfman 30-05-2019 21:24
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997271)
No it is not a red herring - the government could have left it really wanted to have done on 29th March.

Btw - It has not stopped Brexit, why do you keep posting lies?
As you typed this I edited my post - I should have either said stopped it happening on March 29th or delayed Brexit. Neither of which are lies, and I think it's clear what I meant - albeit I could have been clearer with my language.

The next Government won't have the luxury of running down the clock. I hope they do try it though because it'll give the country the general election it needs.

1andrew1 30-05-2019 21:40
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997273)
As you typed this I edited my post - I should have either said stopped it happening on March 29th or delayed Brexit. Neither of which are lies, and I think it's clear what I meant - albeit I could have been clearer with my language.

The next Government won't have the luxury of running down the clock. I hope they do try it though because it'll give the country the general election it needs.
I don't think the country wants another election despite the collection of buffoons queuing up to be PM. The good thing about BoJo's about turns and track record is that he may quite happily bin Brexit if it helps him stay in power :D.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997270)
That's semantics. Parliament found a way to delay Brexit. The fact the Government enabled it is a red herring. the vote of no confidence option always exists and will continue to exist.
Exactly.

pip08456 30-05-2019 21:44
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997273)
As you typed this I edited my post - I should have either said stopped it happening on March 29th or delayed Brexit. Neither of which are lies, and I think it's clear what I meant - albeit I could have been clearer with my language.

The next Government won't have the luxury of running down the clock. I hope they do try it though because it'll give the country the general election it needs.
The delay did not need legislation.

jfman 30-05-2019 21:44
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997279)
The delay did not need legislation.
Statutory instruments are legislation.

Mick 30-05-2019 22:15
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35997280)
Statutory instruments are legislation.
Secondary Legislation I think you will find. ;)

In any case you need to stop lying regarding what needed to happen, you keep going on how right you were, you were only right because the government allowed it to be - what I said at the time was accurate, the government could have left on 29th March had it wanted to.

jfman 31-05-2019 00:15
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35997284)
Secondary Legislation I think you will find. ;)

In any case you need to stop lying regarding what needed to happen, you keep going on how right you were, you were only right because the government allowed it to be - what I said at the time was accurate, the government could have left on 29th March had it wanted to.
It’s still legislation. The Government could have crashed us off the cliff, but I suspect deep down everyone knew Theresa May wouldn’t and would try for her deal again.

If Parliament suspects the next PM is crazy enough to go through with it the no confidence vote is a realistic proposition. Even Hammond hasn’t ruled out voting in favour of it.

Of course the safer option for MPs (given polling data) to avoid a general election would be to kick it back to the people and blame them. Each could look their electorate in the eyes and pretend they genuinely tried.

Being “allowed to be right” is a curious concept. I correctly predicted circumstances would force an extension. My next roll of the dice is circumstances will force another referendum.

Others said amending the EU Withdrawal Act would require primary legislation- that was incorrect. Were they lying? Or in good faith reflecting their understanding of the situation.

1andrew1 31-05-2019 00:23
Re: Brexit
 
Pressure on the no-deal prime ministerial candidates
Quote:
Business lobby group CBI warns Tories over no-deal Brexit
The Confederation of British Industry has warned Conservative leadership candidates over leaving the EU without a deal.

A no-deal scenario would do "severe" damage to businesses, it said in an open letter to all the MPs running to lead the party.

Director general Carolyn Fairbairn warned them that smaller companies can not afford the necessary preparations for leaving without a plan.

She invited them to meet her members.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/48465791

Carth 31-05-2019 00:42
Re: Brexit
 
The Confederation of British Industry

Funny that, I didn't think we had much British Industry left :rolleyes:

Dave42 31-05-2019 00:43
Re: Brexit
 
YouGov
‏
Verified account

@YouGov
51m
51 minutes ago


More
Our latest Westminster voting intention has the Lib Dems in first place and the Brexit Party second place, with Labour and the Tories pushed into third:
Lib Dem - 24%
Brexit Party - 22%
Con - 19%
Labour - 19%
Green - 8%
UKIP - 1%
Change UK - 1%
Other - 6%


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28.
Page 31 of 40 « First 2127282930 31 32333435 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum