BREXIT

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

They were told the direst forecasts , they STILL voted out !

That's not true some sort of deal (which would be easy) was promised. If that were to be believed then the Tory proposal will be no deal. It's not going to happen. 

 

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I am actually beginning to think your real name may well be Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf 😛

Why so ?
There is not one single untruthful statement in that post, check if you like .

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

That's not true some sort of deal (which would be easy) was promised. If that were to be believed then the Tory proposal will be no deal. It's not going to happen. 

 

Promised by who , those making promises , were not in power, and those that were , soon quit .

Edited October 9, 2019 by Rewulf

[oowee]

32 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Dumbest statement for quite some time. David Cameron said it many times, but some won't listen. Head in the sand.

 

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

What a load of garbage that article is.

Wonderful contribution to the debate 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

 

Wonderful contribution to the debate 

But wheres the lie in it ?

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

But wheres the lie in it ?

It's not about leveraging accusations of lies, it's about the irony of accusing anyone whose views you don't agree with as dumb, especially when the person your are leveraging the insult at can't even see the post unless someone else quotes it. 

Go on, try and tell me that's not well funny 😉

9 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Promised by who , those making promises , were not in power, and those that were , soon quit .

So you agree that citing DC is not really a particularly valid position to base an argument on at this stage, great!

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's not about leveraging accusations of lies, it's about the irony of accusing anyone whose views you don't agree with as dumb, especially when the person your are leveraging the insult at can't even see the post unless someone else quotes it. But thats the position YOU chose !

Go on, try and tell me that's not well funny 😉 Im not really seeing it as funny, sorry .

So you agree that citing DC is not really a particularly valid position to base an argument on at this stage, great!
As long as people keep quoting what was said/promised / threatened during the Ref. then every position is valid.
YOU constantly say how we didnt know what KIND of Brexit we were voting for, but its a distraction, we DID vote for Brexit, and we hoped the politicos would get us a favourable parting, but we also took on board the fact it could be painful...and still voted for it.
The sooner you get to grips with this, the clearer the Brexiteer position will become.
And, until you can provide tangible proof that the position has changed, OR we actually have the elusive GE OR 2nd Ref. This is still the position.

At the moment the remainers think they can bypass the result, NOT have a GE or a Ref. and just revoke and forget about it.
If you think for one moment this is right , or even feasible, then I will send the unicorns round your house to carry you off to Narnia.
 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Zut alors!

[Gordon R]

Gordon Bennett.

Quote

Wonderful contribution to the debate 

Thank you oowee. I made more sense in those two snippets than in all of your meaningless posts. Please quote it so your pal can pretend he isn't aware unless you do. 

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

That's not true some sort of deal (which would be easy) was promised. If that were to be believed then the Tory proposal will be no deal. It's not going to happen. 

 

You keep forgetting that a FTA deal was offered but our remainer PM at the time, turned it down.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Newbie to this

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just another nail in the coffin.

Out, as soon as is possible!

Edited October 9, 2019 by TIGHTCHOKE
SPELLAGE!

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

And if N Ireland dont want to be in the EU , or dont their opinions  count ?

I seem to recall that the referendum vote in northern Ireland was something like 56/44 for remain. That seems a pretty firm opinion.

[das]

11 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I seem to recall that the referendum vote in northern Ireland was something like 56/44 for remain. That seems a pretty firm opinion.

A firm opinion if it was an independent country.

Edited October 9, 2019 by das

[oowee]

The FTA (CETA deal) proposed had NI staying in the customs union and parts of the single market. 

[Newbie to this]

20 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I seem to recall that the referendum vote in northern Ireland was something like 56/44 for remain. That seems a pretty firm opinion.

When did they have this referendum?

The 2016 one was the UK as a whole, not individual countries.

So in short the 56% lost and the 44% won. Making the 56% null and void 

[Rewulf]

48 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I seem to recall that the referendum vote in northern Ireland was something like 56/44 for remain. That seems a pretty firm opinion.

Once we are out, shall we let them have a referendum on whether they want to remain part of the UK or not, see if they want to re unify with the South? 

Does that sound like a plan? 

I mean, what could possibly go wrong there? 

[Danger-Mouse]

6 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Dominic Cummings is on the DS3 pay point for senior civil servants. That's £230,000 pa from the taxpayer.

Incredible really that there isn't national outrage. His job basically is to help one faction of the Conservative party win the next election. Why is the taxpayer footing the bill?

No it isn't, it's a standard appointment by any government. 

"Special advisers are paid by central government and are styled as so-called "temporary civil servants" appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.^[1] They contrast with "permanent" civil servants in the respect that they are political appointees whose loyalties are claimed by the governing party and often particular ministers with whom they have a close relationship.

Advisers are governed by a code of conduct which goes some way to defining their role and delineates relations with the permanent civil service, contact with the media and relationship with the governing party, inter alia:

“

the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support [...] Special advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved. They are an additional resource for the Minister providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the permanent Civil Service.

His salary hasn't even been made public from what I can find. Feel free to post a link if you have one.

Olly Robbins salary is public knowledge. He earnt £165,000 P.A. Plus a nice £15-20k bonus from Theresa May. The position Cummings holds is senior to that held by Robbins, so naturally you would expect him to earn more.

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

When did they have this referendum?

The 2016 one was the UK as a whole, not individual countries.

So in short the 56% lost and the 44% won. Making the 56% null and void 

You have perfectly illustrated another issue with the structure of the referendum in the first place.

[Scully]

17 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You have perfectly illustrated another issue with the structure of the referendum in the first place.

But isn’t the ‘structure’ just the same as that of a GE? Why would it or should it ( or why would anyone expect it ) to be any different?

It was a vote run along the same lines as any other vote we’ve had unless you know different. People went to the ballots and cast their votes; what would you expect? 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Scully
Missed out a word!

[ordnance]

Quote

 

Once we are out, shall we let them have a referendum on whether they want to remain part of the UK or not, see if they want to re unify with the South? 

Does that sound like a plan? 

I mean, what could possibly go wrong there? 

 

That would make Brexit look like a walk in the park, the last thing the Irish government want is Irish unity referendum. Brexit was  was a UK vote, the last time i looked it was the united kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Edited October 9, 2019 by ordnance

[KB1]

BJ's got their bums twitching a bit🤔

[oowee]

9 minutes ago, KB1 said:

BJ's got their bums twitching a bit🤔

Ironic that the EU appears more concerned for the social and economic impact of Brexit on the people of Europe (including the UK)  than the UK Government for it's own people. All as we hear from our political leaders are sound bites that raise a cheer from the masses. It's no wonder team UK comes unstuck when you put them up against a well disciplined and organised team. A team that knows in detail the substance and technicalities of the trade arrangements and the legal framework underpinning them. 

The earlier guardian article nailed it when it said .

The state can no longer undertake the radical planning and intervention that might make Brexit work. That would require not only an expert state, but one closely aligned with business.

 Simply put we have, within government, neither the knowledge or the skills required to deliver a successful outcome to a poorly formed and ill thought out process.

[Danger-Mouse]

18 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You have perfectly illustrated another issue with the structure of the referendum in the first place.

What other structure could there be? Country by country? Well, 50/50 on that, so no result there.

But let's say N. Ireland, Wales and Scotland had all voted remain, a 3-1 result. Would that be fair? Bearing in mind the population of those 3 countries is less than 10 million combined.

I suppose we could have offered all of our nations referenda on staying a part of the UK before the EU referendum. Then again the only serious independence movement is in Scotland and they did just have one.

It was a binary decision and the only fair way to decide it was the overall referendum. As someone said, democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have right now.

[Raja Clavata]

49 minutes ago, Scully said:

But isn’t the ‘structure’ just the same as that of a GE? Why would it or should it ( or why would anyone expect it ) to be any different?

It was a vote run along the same lines as any other vote we’ve had unless you know different. People went to the ballots and cast their votes; what would you expect? 

Exactly, a once in a generation (maybe twice soon) vote without any warning of how the outcome might have deep and longer lasting implications not just for the stability of the Union (UK) but it’s continued existence, applied in the same way as a GE whose outcome lasts 5 years max.

NI voted to remain, Scotland voted to remain, English retirees living in Wales most likely skewed the outcome there to leave, only England cleanly voted to leave.

If we’re going to break the Union up why not split England up too. I’m not actually suggesting that as a viable option because it’s ridiculous. Just like the situation we now find ourselves in.

18 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

What other structure could there be? Country by country? Well, 50/50 on that, so no result there.

But let's say N. Ireland, Wales and Scotland had all voted remain, a 3-1 result. Would that be fair? Bearing in mind the population of those 3 countries is less than 10 million combined.

I suppose we could have offered all of our nations referenda on staying a part of the UK before the EU referendum. Then again the only serious independence movement is in Scotland and they did just have one.

It was a binary decision and the only fair way to decide it was the overall referendum. As someone said, democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have right now.

My point was more about the fact that the implications were not thought through because nobody thought the outcome would be leave.

It is what it is but that doesn’t make it right.

[Danger-Mouse]

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

My point was more about the fact that the implications were not thought through because nobody thought the outcome would be leave.

It is what it is but that doesn’t make it right.

Well you're correct that no one expected the outcome. However we had x No. of months of dire financial prediction from Osborne et al . We've had 3 years of further apocalyptic warnings and yet still the appetite for leaving is undiminished. According to an Ipsos-Mori poll we now have 52% supporting a no deal Brexit (oh the irony).

What the Remain side does, and has always done is harp on about the economic effects of Brexit. What they fail to realise is that many Brexit supporters are willing to be hit in the pocket in return for a UK free of direct EU influence. 

"The price of freedom is responsibility, but it's a bargain, because freedom is priceless."

Right? If you want to debate whether the referendum should have happened, well that's a seperate issue.  But the result of the referendum was clear, as were the terns it was held under. 

 

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

NI voted to remain, Scotland voted to remain

No they didn't, the UK as a whole voted to leave. How individual countries within the UK voted is irrelevant!