[Politics] Brexit

[Raleigh Chopper]

I love the way you keep referring to this supposed 'deal'.

You do realise that this 'deal' that is on the table is not a 'deal', it is a proposal.

When I write to Kylie Minogue suggesting that I give her a good seeing to every Saturday night, that doesn't constitute a deal, it's simply a proposal. Only when she agrees, does it cease to become a proposal and actually becomes a deal. Up until it's agreed by the other party, it remains a proposal

And, I think, there is more chance of Ms Minogue saying yes than there is that Johnson's proposal becomes a deal

And I don't think the backing of the HOC makes any difference to either proposal whatsoever

When Kylie comes to her senses and agrees to your proposal, don't forget that any withdrawal agreement is strictly under your terms.
If negotiations fail I will be more than willing to take over the process until both parties are in full agreement that the deal has been completed to the satisfaction of both parties involved.

 

[clapham_gull]

Rumours that Government are considering the possibility of an 'indicative vote' on the plans.

 

[The Clamp]

The way you talk reminds me of someone.

Orange face, yellow hair, what's his name...

I’m not talking. I’m typing.
I’m a remainer, I deal in facts.

 

[dingodan]

I’m not talking. I’m typing.
I’m a remainer, I deal in facts.

Your own personal facts.

You type like him too, I've seen his tweets.

 

[The Clamp]

Your own personal facts.

You type like him too, I've seen his tweets.

Silly boy.
The referendum was advisory. That's a fact. To deny it doesn't make it any less true.
I think it says a lot about what the true feeling on Brexit is that the only people on here who support it are all trolls with nothing of any worth to impart.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Rumours that Government are considering the possibility of an 'indicative vote' on the plans.

Mad, they are just doing every thing they deemed undemocratic under May

 

[dingodan]

Silly boy.
The referendum was advisory. That's a fact. To deny it doesn't make it any less true.
I think it says a lot about what the true feeling on Brexit is that the only people on here who support it are all trolls with nothing of any worth to impart.

It was said that the result would be respected, that this was a decision to be made by the people, and MP's all said they would respect it. Also a fact, and a more significant fact than whether it was technically legally binding or not. But you pick and choose your facts as they suit you.

Everyone who doesn't share your opinion is a troll, and what they say is of no worth.

My comparison between you and trump wasn't just a dig to be mean. It's an honest observation about what comes to mind when I read your posts. Sorry.

 

[The Clamp]

It was said that the result would be respected, that this was a decision to be made by the people, and MP's all said they would respect it. Also a fact, and a more significant fact than whether it was technically legally binding or not. But you pick and choose your facts as they suit you.

Everyone who doesn't share your opinion is a troll, and what they say is of no worth.

My comparison between you and trump wasn't just a dig to be mean. It's an honest observation about what comes to mind when I read your posts. Sorry.

That wasn’t their promise to make and they had no right to make it. Their platitudes to little England don’t supersede the law. Fact.
The rest of your post doesn’t merit response.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.

 

[Stato]

The way you talk reminds me of someone.

Orange face, yellow hair, what's his name...

Jake?

 

[dingodan]

That wasn’t their promise to make and they had no right to make it. Their platitudes to little England don’t supersede the law. Fact.
The rest of your post doesn’t merit response.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Well MP's make the law, so it is kind of is relevant. Whether the ref result is honored or not depends on the decisions they make, so their promise to enact the result is relevant actually. Not to mention that it was their decision to give us the vote. All of them, on all sides, promised to respect the result.

Just by taking part in the vote, assuming that you did, you promised to respect the result. If you play a game, that is a tacit acceptance of the rules.

I know you are the last person to be held to any kind of ethical consistency, you are right and f*ck everyone else, you believe in the truth and everyone else believes in lies, I know. Sieg Heil.

But for the record, anyone who voted in the ref was, by taking part, agreeing to the rules and promising to accept the result.

 

[dingodan]

View attachment 115862

Jake?

Looks familiar...Too happy looking though I think...

 

[The Clamp]

Well MP's make the law, so it is kind of is relevant. Whether the ref result is honored or not depends on the decisions they make, so their promise to enact the result is relevant actually. Not to mention that it was their decision to give us the vote. All of them, on all sides, promised to respect the result.

Just by taking part in the vote, assuming that you did, you promised to respect the result. If you play a game, that is a tacit acceptance of the rules.

I know you are the last person to be held to any kind of ethical consistency, you are right and f*ck everyone else, you believe in the truth and everyone else believes in lies, I know. Sieg Heil.

But for the record, anyone who voted in the ref was, by taking part, agreeing to the rules and promising to accept the result.

 

[beorhthelm]

...
The referendum was advisory. That's a fact. To deny it doesn't make it any less true.
...

heres another fact, 494 to 122, the commons vote in favour of Notification of Withdrawal Act. i dont know why anyone harps on about referendum being advisory, when parliament voted overwhelmingly to follow the advice.

 

[Lever]

No, I am suggesting that if we all accept the result of the biggest democratic exercise in this countries history then all will be better than it will be if we all accept the demands of the minority who took part in that democratic exercise but refuse to accept the result after the fact.

Dictators ignore democratic votes, take a look in the mirror for more information.

Simplistic, false dichotomy.
What on earth do you mean 'accept' the result?
I accept that in 2016 more of the voting public voted to leave the EU than voted to remain.
That's where your argument ends and practical implementation begins.
What type of 'leave' do Brexiters agree on?
What type of Brexit respects both the 52% and the 48% and brings some kind harmony back to this riven nation?
You don't know but you continue to bang the dreary drum of simply 'accepting the result'.
You do the simple bit ('Leave won, get over it') but have no more idea on what in practice will bring the country together than I have.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Whether the ref result is honored or not depends on the decisions they make, so their promise to enact the result is relevant actually. Not to mention that it was their decision to give us the vote. All of them, on all sides, promised to respect the result.

They promised to respect the the result - of a vote - in which the leave campaign made clear that what people were voting for was to leave ‘with a deal’, ‘an orderly exit’, etc. In fact it was promised that A50 would only be triggered AFTER an agreement had been reached.

Do you have a list of which promises ‘count’?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In fact it was promised that A50 would only be triggered AFTER an agreement had been reached.

Do you have a list of which promises ‘count’?

And it was only after the result that the EU said they wouldn't talk about a deal until A50 had been triggered.

 

[The Clamp]

heres another fact, 494 to 122, the commons vote in favour of Notification of Withdrawal Act. i dont know why anyone harps on about referendum being advisory, when parliament voted overwhelmingly to follow the advice.

Yes. Thus proving that it was advisory. Otherwise it would not require a Parliamentary vote.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yes. Thus proving that it was advisory. Otherwise it would not require a Parliamentary vote.

It would have needed a Parliamentary vote even if it had been binding - the government has no powers just to make laws.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And it was only after the result that the EU said they wouldn't talk about a deal until A50 had been triggered.

That didn't stop Theresa May planning what she actually wanted nor getting the HoC to agree it. She knew she only had a small majority so wasted time having a general election instead.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It would have needed a Parliamentary vote even if it had been binding - the government has no powers just to make laws.

Theresa May tried it but Gina Miller went to court to make sure it had a Parliamentary vote.
It required an act of Parliament to go into the Common Market, so the judgement was it needed one to invoke the Withdrawal.
May wanted to invoke Article 50 as early as November 2016. It makes you wonder what the tearing hurry was, and still is.