Jump to content

Brexit - merged threads


scouser
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I see Anna Soubry MP was "offered some advice" outside Parliament yesterday!

Much as I disagree with Anna Soubry, these bully boy tactics are completely wrong.  They are wrong whoever they come from and I hope the police take action if it is needed.  Sadly their record is poor based on the lack of response when some MPs were bullied by the momentum mob for standing up over anti Semitism issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oowee said:

Carp. Whats Cameron to do with anything? Cameron, Blair they are all has been's and they were not on the ballot paper. 

Lots of project promise from both sides but the vote was clear 'Leave the European Union' Nothing more nothing less. Any of the options being considered will fulfill that promise. Remember we all knew what we were voting for. 

looking forward now it's only a few weeks and we can get onto the phase two 

 

Cameron is the man that called the referendum, it was on his terms that leave should have meant leaving, just as if the country had voted to remain there would have been no argument or back pedalling, while I completely accept anyone can have a different view to myself that leaving the EU would be fantastic for this country and the working masses, if you really cannot see that the leave vote has been subverted because Cameron and most of parliament never thought the country would vote leave I can only assume you have no grasp whatsoever of the brexit issue, if it is simply that you are refusing to admit it, like many remainiacs it is nothing short of treacherous anti democratic behaviour and is a stain on our country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We voted to leave the EU. We will leave the EU and democracy is respected. That is democracy.

We were not voting for anything Cameron, Borris or anyone else said none of them had the authority to set the future. We knew what we were voting for. We knew we were voting to leave the EU.

I understand that maybe you thought you were voting based on some commentary but the ballot paper was clear. What is also abundantly clear is that leaving the EU has a range of possible consequences some of which may be harmful to the economic position of the country. The debate is now about which of these options is least 'costly' rather than over the decision of the referendum.

I accept that there are some who are looking to reverse the decision to leave and force another vote. That's politics in action and surely another facet of democracy. It would be wrong to not enact the will of the people even if they change their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oowee said:

We voted to leave the EU. We will leave the EU and democracy is respected. That is democracy.

We were not voting for anything Cameron, Borris or anyone else said none of them had the authority to set the future. We knew what we were voting for. We knew we were voting to leave the EU.

I understand that maybe you thought you were voting based on some commentary but the ballot paper was clear. What is also abundantly clear is that leaving the EU has a range of possible consequences some of which may be harmful to the economic position of the country. The debate is now about which of these options is least 'costly' rather than over the decision of the referendum.

I accept that there are some who are looking to reverse the decision to leave and force another vote. That's politics in action and surely another facet of democracy. It would be wrong to not enact the will of the people even if they change their minds.

If we "leave" on disMays "deal" we will have left the EU in name only, it will keep us tied to nearly all the rules that being an EU member entailed, that is not democracy, that is subverting democracy, which ever way its wrapped up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

If we "leave" on disMays "deal" we will have left the EU in name only, it will keep us tied to nearly all the rules that being an EU member entailed, that is not democracy, that is subverting democracy, which ever way its wrapped up. 

We knew what we were voting for and we voted to leave. If we leave under Mays deal that is democracy delivered. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, oowee said:

If we leave under Mays deal that is democracy delivered. 

May's deal where we have to get the EU's agreement before we can exit the 'backstop' to the transition plan (should we enter it - as we almost certainly would) falls flat and is completely unacceptable on that issue alone.  We actually become more tied in if we enter that so called 'backstop'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still very much on the fence with this Brexit thing, we live in interesting times as they say...

 

But  as the word democracy is flung around so many times almost as a weapon,  I have a hypothetical question to you all on both sides

 

If Corbyn somehow was put into power, and had a public referendum, lets say on banning all non pest control shooting,  shooting for fun as the antis like to desribe it, and the vote went 52% for a ban.  Would we all be so keen on adhering to the principle of democrarcy then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely we must agree that with Mays deal we are not leaving the EU but are simply locking ourselves in with absolutely no way of them allowing us to get any future deal that fulfills any of the criteria we want.

The above is under no doubt to all but die hard Remainiacs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

Surely we must agree that with Mays deal we are not leaving the EU but are simply locking ourselves in with absolutely no way of them allowing us to get any future deal that fulfills any of the criteria we want.

The above is under no doubt to all but die hard Remainiacs.

Could not agree more, I can only think anyone disagreeing with this is either lacking mental capacity or has an agenda. 

Edited by 12gauge82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

Surely we must agree that with Mays deal we are not leaving the EU but are simply locking ourselves in with absolutely no way of them allowing us to get any future deal that fulfills any of the criteria we want.

This rather simplifies the issue;  May's deal is only for the 'Transition Period' and theoretically will expire at the end of that period (December 2020 which is 21 months).  During the transition period - the final 'leave' deal is negotiated.  The problem (for me anyway) is that IF we fail to get an agreed deal for the end of the transition period - then the 'backstop' comes into force - and that is where I do have a major disagreement - because we can't exit the backstop without their agreement.

You can see how the negotiations will end up; the EU will ensure that we get no deal by December 2020 - so the backstop kicks in - then we are 'in' with no means of exit.  My guess is the 'final deal' will be stalled by them (especially the French who have already stated this) demanding rights to fish in our section of seas (or something similar).

Why it has taken 2 years to negotiate a non viable 21 month transition period is a good question.  The answer clearly lies in the negotiators lack of proper negotiation (one side dictates, the other gives in).

The real hard work starts during the transition period - when the long term relationship once the transition period ends are being negotiated. 

Oh, and by the way, the £39 billion payment that is part of May's deal is to cover the 21 month transition period - if this gets extended by the backstop kicking in - we have to pay another £15 billion per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron quite clearly said we would leave the the EU no renegotiation etc etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7qZhlrbcB8

If any loser can find me anything anywhere pre referendum where this statement was withdrawn, amended or added to saying things similar to we will negotiate with the EU as to the conditions of how we leave then I and millions of other winners will shut up.

If the losers cant do that which I firmly believe if they could they would have done so by now  then perhaps it would be beneficial to us all if they stopped constantly whining and trying to pervert the outcome of the vote.

Edited by sportsbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, scolopax said:

I am still very much on the fence with this Brexit thing, we live in interesting times as they say...

 

But  as the word democracy is flung around so many times almost as a weapon,  I have a hypothetical question to you all on both sides

 

If Corbyn somehow was put into power, and had a public referendum, lets say on banning all non pest control shooting,  shooting for fun as the antis like to desribe it, and the vote went 52% for a ban.  Would we all be so keen on adhering to the principle of democrarcy then?

Not wanting to derail the thread but that is not comparable to the Brexit referendum, the Brexit referendum is something that effects all people in real terms where shooting only effects the shooters in real terms as shooting  has no direct effect on anyone who does not shoot.

I would bet more members of the general public are effected on a daily basis in Town centres by skateboarders than people nationwide are effected by shooters but I doubt very much you`l get a vote to stop that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

This rather simplifies the issue;  May's deal is only for the 'Transition Period' and theoretically will expire at the end of that period (December 2020 which is 21 months).  During the transition period - the final 'leave' deal is negotiated.  The problem (for me anyway) is that IF we fail to get an agreed deal for the end of the transition period - then the 'backstop' comes into force - and that is where I do have a major disagreement - because we can't exit the backstop without their agreement.

You can see how the negotiations will end up; the EU will ensure that we get no deal by December 2020 - so the backstop kicks in - then we are 'in' with no means of exit.  My guess is the 'final deal' will be stalled by them (especially the French who have already stated this) demanding rights to fish in our section of seas (or something similar).

Why it has taken 2 years to negotiate a non viable 21 month transition period is a good question.  The answer clearly lies in the negotiators lack of proper negotiation (one side dictates, the other gives in).

The real hard work starts during the transition period - when the long term relationship once the transition period ends are being negotiated. 

Oh, and by the way, the £39 billion payment that is part of May's deal is to cover the 21 month transition period - if this gets extended by the backstop kicking in - we have to pay another £15 billion per year.

Me simplifying the issue does not alter the end game it all ends up us tied in the EU with further cost and nothing we want agreed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

Me simplifying the issue does not alter the end game it all ends up us tied in the EU with further cost and nothing we want agreed to.

I don't disagree.  However my point is that all the present huff & puff of hot air is actually about a 21 month "Transition Period".  That expires in 21 months anyway, so whilst hardly 'trivial', it is only for a transitory period of 21 months ....... except for that indeterminate backstop - which in my view MUST go. 

The EU has consistently flatly refused to do any proper trade negotiations on how we will trade when outside the EU ...... until the transition deal is agreed and we are in it.

My point is that we have all this - but MUCH harder to come during the 21 month "Transition Period" which is when the real leave negotiations BEGIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Paid for, no. Likely to have influenced and contributed to, yes. Benefit from, definitely. 

Thats an  interesting answer.
The NCA investigation into Banks 'fraud' concerns 'illegal' financing of vote leave, the Russian money thing has been bandied about the media without challenge.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/why-isnt-there-greater-outrage-about-russian-involvement-in-brexit

After the vote[edit]

  • October 2017, Members of Parliament in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee demanded that Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other social media corporations disclose all adverts and details of payments by Russia in the Brexit campaign.[8]
  • 12 December 2017, members of the US Congress Ruben Gallego, Eric Swalwell and Gerry Connolly wrote to the Director of National Intelligence requesting information on Russian interference in the Brexit vote.[10] On 13 December 2017, Facebook stated that it found no significant Russian activity during Brexit, but this[clarification needed] was immediately rejected by the committee chair, Damian Collins, as being information that was already public after US investigations into Russian interference.[11]
  • January 2018, a US Senate minority report suggested possible ways Russia may have influenced the Brexit campaign.[12] It stated,[13]
The Russian government has sought to influence democracy in the United Kingdom through disinformation, cyber hacking, and corruption. While a complete picture of the scope and nature of Kremlin interference in the UK's June 2016 referendum is still emerging, Prime Minister Theresa May and the UK government have condemned the Kremlin’s active measures, and various UK government entities, including the Electoral Commission and parliamentarians, have launched investigations into different aspects of possible Russian government meddling.
  • June 2018, The Guardian suggested that Arron Banks, the biggest donor to the campaign for leaving, and co-organiser of Leave.EU received the offer of a Russian gold mine, and had had a series of meetings with the Russian Ambassador. On 14 June 2018, Banks appeared before Parliamentary committee hearing, where he appeared to admit to having lied about his engagements with Russians, and later walked out refusing to answer further questions by citing a luncheon appointment with the Democratic Unionist Party.[14][not in citation given]
  • July 2018, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, released an interim report on 'Disinformation and ‘fake news’', stating that Russia had engaged in "unconventional warfare" through Twitter and other social media against the United Kingdom, designed to amplify support for a "leave" vote in Brexit.[15]
  • 20 September, AggregateIQ, a Canadian political consultancy and analytics company, receives the first GDPR notice issued by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for using people's data "for purposes which they would not have expected." Various pro-Brexit campaigns paid the company £3.5 million to target ads at prospective voters. While its Brexit work was before the GDPR went into effect, it was fined because it retained and continued to use the data after the GDPR came into full force. The company is affiliated with SCL Group and Cambridge Analytica, and Cambridge Analytica employees sometimes call AggregateIQ "our Canadian office."[16]
  • November 2018, a criminal investigation of Banks was launched after the Electoral Commission concluded "we have reasonable grounds to suspect that: Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans" and "Various criminal offences may have been committed."[17]

 

Also despite the social media companies investigating the claims of Russian collusion, they found minimal evidence ?
A claim that didnt fit with the overall narrative.
So are the multi billion $ social media giants 'in on it ' too ?

This is what it comes down to at the end of the day, and you can look at Trumps campaign and election for a comparison.
The Russian narrative comes into effect, when the result of a vote doesnt go the way the main stream political class wants.
Its painfully predictable, blame the Russkies , they will complain or ignore it , but no one is interested because lets face it, if an 'unnamed source' said that Putin ate a freshly born child every morning for breakfast, few in the west would bat an eyelid, probably mutter 'knew he were a wrong un'

2 years and more has passed since Brexit and Trump, and still we hear of Russian collusion in both, to somehow invalidate the results.
2 years of the most thorough investigations, statements and accusations, and not one shred of proof has emerged, and evidence to the contrary has been rubbished.
Like a lot of media scat thrown around in this day and age, they seem to hope some of it will stick.
Unfortunately a lot of it stays on the hands.

Edited by Rewulf
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oowee said:

👍

Can we agree that we are fed up of all the messing about ? 🙂

WHO is messing about ?

If we had a government that wasnt pro remain, if we had signed article 50 within a few weeks of the Ref result, if we had a negotiating team that didnt have their hands tied behind their backs by that same pro remain government, who have bent over backwards to accommodate Brussels, and promise them whatever they wanted, then we would have been out by now, done and dusted.
JohnUK has it down right, we have spent 2.5 years giving in to Brussels on virtually everything, its been a stalling tactic, and its lead to what ? A withdrawal agreement that parliament wont pass 🤣
Now they want to vote through a motion that means the legal basis for leaving in March is repealed ? !

To clarify, we offer the EU a means to keep us in the customs union, with every restriction that entails, a 21 month transition period, the possibility of fracturing the union, £40 bn (for the moment) for nothing but the chance to continue negotiating ?
What a cracking deal ! 😂
But no, thats not good enough for the remainers in the house, rather than the legal fall back option of 'no deal' a scenario many consider favourable, and £40 bn cheaper, they want to illegally remove that option.
To what ? Another 2 years of fruitless negotiations, or what they really want.. remain in the EU.

If that is the house 'representing ' the people who elect them, then they are not fit for purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...