BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
That what I mean about a corruption in politics.
It's not fatigue Rick chasey. There is no best out for Brexit now
Each outcome is terrible. The deal is an outcome and its possible. Its has it down sides. All.options have significant downsides but the battle ground has to shift. So given the other outcomes wont get passed parliament and the public will wear the deal then the deal it is. Yes the deal leads to the potential breakup of the u.k but that going to happen anyway. The opposition to brexit is no longer in the interests of the nation. The eu have said it but they no longer want us in.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Lots of reasons... yes, sure because we didn't like the result (let's be honest), but the disliking of the result was not just because it didn't go the way some of us hoped, but also:Stevo 666 wrote:
A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quite right. Apparently it comes down to only 650 people.Ballysmate wrote:I assume that if it had been 52/48 the other way you would be telling Leavers to suck it up.
A million people eh? What do we make of that? Not even the difference between leave and remain.
Or 64 million are quite happy to leave. Quite meaningless
I thought that was what the people on here who were against holding a referendum wanted?
So if you don't want the 650 MPs to decide and you didn't want a plebiscite, are people now suggesting we should go by who can turn out the biggest demo?
1) Because it was so badly framed: a vote on changing the constitution of any organisation would normally require more than a simple majority of those voting.
2) Following on from that, the prospectus was so poorly defined as to be meaningless (let's ignore any lies for now). If we were to take the 'Leave' option to have been based on the public utterances of its proponents at the time of the vote, leaving the Customs Union and Single Market was not on the ballot paper. You can't just change the terms of contracts once they've been signed because you think you can get away with it.
All this may be true but at the same time it changes little. The more dug remainers get the more drug in leavers get. If neither side accepts the others position then england ruptures as it becomes ungovernable.
The referendum result no.matter how flawed still reflected the will of many. That the point. The vote to leave is not really about the promises made. That's why when remainers argue no we know what leave means we should have a peoples vote, leave voters overwhelmingly dont buy it. That arguements only rallies remain referendum supporters.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
Just pointing out that what the 65m think is irrelevant today in our political system.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quite right. Apparently it comes down to only 650 people.Ballysmate wrote:I assume that if it had been 52/48 the other way you would be telling Leavers to suck it up.
A million people eh? What do we make of that? Not even the difference between leave and remain.
Or 64 million are quite happy to leave. Quite meaningless
I thought that was what the people on here who were against holding a referendum wanted?
So if you don't want the 650 MPs to decide and you didn't want a plebiscite, are people now suggesting we should go by who can turn out the biggest demo?
At least until the next GE as I doubt there will be another referendum.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It can, but may look a bit unbalanced if one is only advisory and the other one binding.TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?
A referendum can be legally binding.
As it goes I believe that the only proper reason for a second referendum is for the approval of the deal by the electorate, though I'm not sure what a 'fair' alternative is if the deal is rejected."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Who would decide whether a referendum is good enough/ framed well enough/ defined enough etc to be binding?briantrumpet wrote:
Lots of reasons... yes, sure because we didn't like the result (let's be honest), but the disliking of the result was not just because it didn't go the way some of us hoped, but also:Stevo 666 wrote:
A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quite right. Apparently it comes down to only 650 people.Ballysmate wrote:I assume that if it had been 52/48 the other way you would be telling Leavers to suck it up.
A million people eh? What do we make of that? Not even the difference between leave and remain.
Or 64 million are quite happy to leave. Quite meaningless
I thought that was what the people on here who were against holding a referendum wanted?
So if you don't want the 650 MPs to decide and you didn't want a plebiscite, are people now suggesting we should go by who can turn out the biggest demo?
1) Because it was so badly framed: a vote on changing the constitution of any organisation would normally require more than a simple majority of those voting.
2) Following on from that, the prospectus was so poorly defined as to be meaningless (let's ignore any lies for now). If we were to take the 'Leave' option to have been based on the public utterances of its proponents at the time of the vote, leaving the Customs Union and Single Market was not on the ballot paper. You can't just change the terms of contracts once they've been signed because you think you can get away with it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It'll be interesting to see the line the Tories take if this ends in a pre Brexit GE.
They must support their own deal or fall into the Thornberry trap BUT still fend off the threat from the Brexit Party who say this isn't Brexit.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:It'll be interesting to see the line the Tories take if this ends in a pre Brexit GE.
They must support their own deal or fall into the Thornberry trap BUT still fend off the threat from the Brexit Party who say this isn't Brexit.
Support deal. Win lots of seats.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?
A referendum can be legally binding.
As it goes I believe that the only proper reason for a second referendum is for the approval of the deal by the electorate, though I'm not sure what a 'fair' alternative is if the deal is rejected.
Wherher the referendum was binding or not became moot following the first Miller court case. Parliament passed the Act giving the government the go ahead to leave the EU.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Lots of reasons... yes, sure because we didn't like the result (let's be honest), but the disliking of the result was not just because it didn't go the way some of us hoped, but also:Stevo 666 wrote:
A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quite right. Apparently it comes down to only 650 people.Ballysmate wrote:I assume that if it had been 52/48 the other way you would be telling Leavers to suck it up.
A million people eh? What do we make of that? Not even the difference between leave and remain.
Or 64 million are quite happy to leave. Quite meaningless
I thought that was what the people on here who were against holding a referendum wanted?
So if you don't want the 650 MPs to decide and you didn't want a plebiscite, are people now suggesting we should go by who can turn out the biggest demo?
1) Because it was so badly framed: a vote on changing the constitution of any organisation would normally require more than a simple majority of those voting.
2) Following on from that, the prospectus was so poorly defined as to be meaningless (let's ignore any lies for now). If we were to take the 'Leave' option to have been based on the public utterances of its proponents at the time of the vote, leaving the Customs Union and Single Market was not on the ballot paper. You can't just change the terms of contracts once they've been signed because you think you can get away with it.
I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.0 -
Pinno wrote:mfin wrote:The fact remains that 52/48 was the equivalent of two drinks one slightly fuller than the other, but one was fuller as it had a floating turd in it. That turd represented racists, xenophobes and those without the slightest bit of mental agility to match their own false attributions of why they feel the country is not in a state that they want.
This, unfortunately, is true.
It only takes the vote of a small percentage of the above to swing it in the favour of an exit.
I would hate to leave the EU based on the fact that the xenophobes and the disillusioned voted to leave based on some misguided notion that a white, foreigner free Nirvana was in the offing.
I mean no offence to the more sentient leave voters, that's an aside but if you were on a desert island with 40 people of which 5 were just plain thick and there was a vote on something critical where all of the 40 were allowed to vote...
I notice that the usual leave protagonists have gone very quiet tonight.
It is probably because they cant be bothered having to point out that they are not racists and xenophobes that you repeatedly claim. You best claim yet is to claim that leave only won because of people seemingly with the above views.0 -
john80 wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
Lots of reasons... yes, sure because we didn't like the result (let's be honest), but the disliking of the result was not just because it didn't go the way some of us hoped, but also:Stevo 666 wrote:
A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quite right. Apparently it comes down to only 650 people.Ballysmate wrote:I assume that if it had been 52/48 the other way you would be telling Leavers to suck it up.
A million people eh? What do we make of that? Not even the difference between leave and remain.
Or 64 million are quite happy to leave. Quite meaningless
I thought that was what the people on here who were against holding a referendum wanted?
So if you don't want the 650 MPs to decide and you didn't want a plebiscite, are people now suggesting we should go by who can turn out the biggest demo?
1) Because it was so badly framed: a vote on changing the constitution of any organisation would normally require more than a simple majority of those voting.
2) Following on from that, the prospectus was so poorly defined as to be meaningless (let's ignore any lies for now). If we were to take the 'Leave' option to have been based on the public utterances of its proponents at the time of the vote, leaving the Customs Union and Single Market was not on the ballot paper. You can't just change the terms of contracts once they've been signed because you think you can get away with it.
I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
And just to make sure everyone knew what was at stake the government sent us all a leaflet spelling it out.
Are people no claiming it not to be the case after all?
I assume in which case people on here will be queuing up to apologise to Coopster for ridiculing him for calling the Remainders claims 'scaremongering'0 -
Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:A lot of people who want a second referendum were also keen to point out that referendums are only advisory. So I'm not sure why they are so keen on another one?
A referendum can be legally binding.
As it goes I believe that the only proper reason for a second referendum is for the approval of the deal by the electorate, though I'm not sure what a 'fair' alternative is if the deal is rejected.
Wherher the referendum was binding or not became moot following the first Miller court case. Parliament passed the Act giving the government the go ahead to leave the EU.
Yup“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..0 -
Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube0 -
Anyone who asserts the terms of the referendum were clear that the UK would leave the EU, and that this meant leaving the customs union and single market, must accept that Boris's deal doesn't fulfill the terms of the referendum.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
In what way?TailWindHome wrote:Anyone who asserts the terms of the referendum were clear that the UK would leave the EU, and that this meant leaving the customs union and single market, must accept that Boris's deal doesn't fulfill the terms of the referendum."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
In what way?TailWindHome wrote:Anyone who asserts the terms of the referendum were clear that the UK would leave the EU, and that this meant leaving the customs union and single market, must accept that Boris's deal doesn't fulfill the terms of the referendum.
The UK hasn't left the EU
GB has, but the UK hasn't.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube
This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.
Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube
This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.
Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.
So Rick,the PM calls a referendum and stated what a vote for either option would mean as he would be the one acting on the result. And you say this is nonsense?
Gove, BJ nor anyone else from Leave were in a position to deliver any sort of Brexit as they weren't PM.
And if you are using a cycling forum for the terms of reference for Brexit, well, that's priceless.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
In what way?TailWindHome wrote:Anyone who asserts the terms of the referendum were clear that the UK would leave the EU, and that this meant leaving the customs union and single market, must accept that Boris's deal doesn't fulfill the terms of the referendum.
The UK hasn't left the EU
GB has, but the UK hasn't.
To be fair, which actual Brexit proposals apply to the whole of the UK? EEA+CU, no deal and Chequers? Any others? Of those, EEA + CU doesn't seem like Brexit, no deal doen't feel like what people voted for, and Chequers is not acceptable to the EU.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube
This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.
Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.
So Rick,the PM calls a referendum and stated what a vote for either option would mean as he would be the one acting on the result. And you say this is nonsense?
Gove, BJ nor anyone else from Leave were in a position to deliver any sort of Brexit as they weren't PM.
And if you are using a cycling forum for the terms of reference for Brexit, well, that's priceless.
In the context of a ref you get plenty of claim and counter claim. You ought to hold the victors to their word.
All you are saying is that remain were indeed right that leave were lying about their intentions to stay in the SM.
That is not a justification for a hard Brexit. It’s weasling.0 -
Go on explain.TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
In what way?TailWindHome wrote:Anyone who asserts the terms of the referendum were clear that the UK would leave the EU, and that this meant leaving the customs union and single market, must accept that Boris's deal doesn't fulfill the terms of the referendum.
The UK hasn't left the EU
GB has, but the UK hasn't.
As far as I can see we will leave both the single market and the customs union under the terms of the current deal."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube
This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.
Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.
So Rick,the PM calls a referendum and stated what a vote for either option would mean as he would be the one acting on the result. And you say this is nonsense?
Gove, BJ nor anyone else from Leave were in a position to deliver any sort of Brexit as they weren't PM.
And if you are using a cycling forum for the terms of reference for Brexit, well, that's priceless.
In the context of a ref you get plenty of claim and counter claim. You ought to hold the victors to their word.
All you are saying is that remain were indeed right that leave were lying about their intentions to stay in the SM.
That is not a justification for a hard Brexit. It’s weasling.
Were they lying? Only they know.
It also seems that if you believe that the Remain campaign's assertion that a vote to Leave meant us out of the SM CU etc, was not the case at all, you will be one of the posters on here who will be apologising to Coopster for ridiculing his 'Project Fear' claims.0 -
It's all beside the point. It doesn't matter any more how we got here; what anyone said or didn't say has been superseded by other events, not least the 2017 election which I'd argue was the public holding both sides to account.Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube
This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.
Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.
So Rick,the PM calls a referendum and stated what a vote for either option would mean as he would be the one acting on the result. And you say this is nonsense?
Gove, BJ nor anyone else from Leave were in a position to deliver any sort of Brexit as they weren't PM.
And if you are using a cycling forum for the terms of reference for Brexit, well, that's priceless.
The thing with Johnson is to ignore what he said/says and look at what he does. He has negotiated an exit deal and has requested an extension. By changing the backstop to a frontstop he has brought the ERG on board and by requesting the extension he has reassured the exiles that no deal is just talk. He just needs to keep the pressure on to get it over the line. You can see Farage is worried that Johnson is close to pulling this off.
As for how close or distant the FTA will be, I'm not sure Johnson is particularly ideological about it. I suspect he'll just work out what he can get the greatest number of MPs to vote for.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry - I thought you thought it was all an elaborate ruse to achieve no deal?0
-
If we are not careful we will end up writing the works of Shakespeare.
0 -
Interestingly enough, I am still waiting on a viable end game that resolves the Irish issue.Ballysmate wrote:A long thread of posts and a link.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There are 2...
A border at the edge of the Customs Union
A border in the Irish Sea.
It's quite simple and has ever been thus, the choice has to be made one way or the other is all.
(Technically there is a third but we had a war about that quite recently...)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:john80 wrote:I am pretty sure that david cameron said we were leaving both the single market and customs union. Do you not remember these claims.
If you could provide a link, that would be great..Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
No. Come up with a viable end game.Ballysmate wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Could be true.Ballysmate wrote:verylonglegs wrote:We had a referendum with a single question that some people struggled understand, how will they cope with anything more taxing?
The only people that seem to have found the question difficult to understand, appear to be Remainers tbh
I find brexiteers struggle more with the answer though.
I presume by that, you mean that they come up with a different answer to you?
Any viable end game. Remember, it must include the Irish issue.
It was stated that people didn't understand the question. They understood the question perfectly. I posted, hundreds of pages ago that it would be impossible to square the FOM and SM circle.
I see no way that the Irish conundrum can be satisfied to everyone's benefit, but that is not what was being addressed by VLL's comment is it?
Surely understanding the question is not the problem? That is simple - leave the EU.
The problem is that the world and his dog then drew up their own red lines for what that actually meant. In reality that is a debate about what our future relationship should look like.
Correct.
The leaflet sent out by the government stating what a Leave vote would mean is what Brexiteers voted for. Cameron also stated in Parliament what was at stake.
From an earlier post
Besides the leaflet that the government sent to each household in support of the Remain campaign, the PM who organised the referendum had this to say a week before the vote.
https://youtu.be/9BjtP00IRPA?t=2172
Seems pretty clear what was at stake and undertook to uphold the decision of the vote, whichever way it went.
It was only afterwards that Remainers started to argue that the vote actually meant something else. Little wonder Brexiteers get annoyed.
There you go. YouTube
This is a most nonesense argument, as vote leave ruled it out in response to this claim.
Take a look at this thread and you’ll see the ref was framed in a “never leave the single market” context.
So Rick,the PM calls a referendum and stated what a vote for either option would mean as he would be the one acting on the result. And you say this is nonsense?
Gove, BJ nor anyone else from Leave were in a position to deliver any sort of Brexit as they weren't PM.
And if you are using a cycling forum for the terms of reference for Brexit, well, that's priceless.
In the context of a ref you get plenty of claim and counter claim. You ought to hold the victors to their word.
All you are saying is that remain were indeed right that leave were lying about their intentions to stay in the SM.
That is not a justification for a hard Brexit. It’s weasling.
Were they lying? Only they know.
It also seems that if you believe that the Remain campaign's assertion that a vote to Leave meant us out of the SM CU etc, was not the case at all, you will be one of the posters on here who will be apologising to Coopster for ridiculing his 'Project Fear' claims.
Well they said they wouldn’t leave the single market and both proposed deals do, so go figure.0
