BREXIT

[JohnfromUK]

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

starting with the FACT that there was no plan for Brexit in the event that the referendum result went the way of leave.

The whole referendum process was approved by Parliament.

1. Cameron made the pledge to hold a referendum if he won in order to gain/hold seats he thought he might loose due to influence of UKIP splitting leave votes
2. Cameron tried to negotiate some concessions from the EU to enable him to win the referendum based on a remain campaign
3. The EU gave virtually nothing and showed him the door (something I suspect they now regret) with smug grins
4. Cameron held the referendum (June 2016) expecting remain to win despite having the ground pulled from under him by Juncker & Co.  The bill to hold it, the detailed question and all the process was fully agreed by Parliament.  We were clearly told that "leave meant leave", customs union, single market and all.
5. Remain lost
6. Cameron resigned
7. May came to be P.M.  Promises to honour the referendum result - with the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal"
8. Parliament passes the Article 50 bill, by a decent majority with again full oversight and approval by Parliament.  It clearly contains a fixed end date of March 2019
9. May hold a General Election on with Labour and Tory both campaign promising to leave.  Tory minority government results with Labour (who campaigned on a leaving ticket) the second biggest party.  BY FAR the majority of all MPs had campaigned on a promise to honour the referendum result.
10. May gets a 'deal' from the EU, but it is rejected - she goes back to the EU who show her the door (rather as they did with Cameron) and her deal fails twice more despite trying to work with Labour who also show her the door.  A new date is set of 31st October 2019 (date set by the EU)
11. May resigns to be succeeded by Johnson who promises to leave "deal or no deal" by 31st October 2019. 
12. Parliament tries repeatedly to derail Johnsons promise claiming;

• They had insufficient time
• No deal wasn't ever an option (despite 'taking it off' being rejected)

1. Johnson prorogues Parliament

How can they claim that the question weren't 'clear' and another referendum is needed?  They agreed the question at the time

How can the claim they have had insufficient time when they have had 3 years?

How can they claim 'no deal' wasn't an option when they passed the Article 50 bill and we had very clearly been told the "no deal was better than a bad deal"

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

If Ireland has a problem with the border they can build one, nobody is stopping them. Not our problem.

But lets just step back for a moment and look at the issue

The idea that a product from outside the EU, lets say Australian lamb, could be landed in Britain, then shipped to Northern Ireland, driven from the North to the South and re-exported into mainland Europe to avoid paying EU import duty is ridiculous. The cost of doing it would be far greater than the duty they would avoid paying.

Its a tactical objection nothing more

Lets take that step. To abide by WTO trade rules we have to apply the same trade rules to all unless we have agreed a trade deal. We could have no border for Ireland and no duty control mechanisms applied and in which case we would have to have the same arrangement for every country that we trade with. Open borders to the world would not be good. That border (or rather border control mechanisms) are a matter for both sides. 

That Australian lamb could go into a lamb pie and easily be passed off as British and sold to the EU without agreed controls. There are different tariffs that apply to different types of meat dependent on where it was sourced how it is cut and stored. Lamb export tariff to the EU (as a third country) is currently set between 12.5% and 76%. It looks like there could be a good financial case for shipping lamb to the UK for processing and then putting it to the EU at a lower tariff than exporting direct. 

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

So someone can scream at Soubry, and get charged, but that does not happen to any of the mob who  threatened Farage?  Sorry Raja, expected better than that from you.

I didn't say that, and I'm not defending Soubry but I would suggest that there were more than screams at Soubry and certainly so in the Renshaw case. I know you believe the media is biased but are you also suggesting the Police and CPS are anti Brexit too?

56 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Raja, are you admitting he,s right? That all the Remoaners want to do is to block Brexit? Not really interested in a deal? Wow!

Certainly not, at least not in all cases of the actions of MPs who have thwarted Brexit thus far. Nice(ish) try though...

51 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Why should there have been a plan? 

Is that a serious question!?

[Raja Clavata]

22 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

We don't have it yet! Because people like your self can't accept the vote that took place! We've not left yet so we don't have it back. Suspending parliament is nothing unusual, but ofcourse the moaning brigade would say it is.

And in reply to a comment you made previously regarding examples of remoaners kicking off at leavers as it's only ever us racist radical pig **** thick leavers harrasing remain voters... 

Oh wait, I've been classed a racist dumb *** that doesn't know anything. 

I fully accept that a vote took place.

Where does this notion of suspension of parliament being nothing unusual come from? Particularly in the context of something as fundamentally important as Brexit...

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make on the remaining comments above.

[Raja Clavata]

24 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The whole referendum process was approved by Parliament.

1. Cameron made the pledge to hold a referendum if he won in order to gain/hold seats he thought he might loose due to influence of UKIP splitting leave votes
2. Cameron tried to negotiate some concessions from the EU to enable him to win the referendum based on a remain campaign
3. The EU gave virtually nothing and showed him the door (something I suspect they now regret) with smug grins
4. Cameron held the referendum (June 2016) expecting remain to win despite having the ground pulled from under him by Juncker & Co.  The bill to hold it, the detailed question and all the process was fully agreed by Parliament.  We were clearly told that "leave meant leave", customs union, single market and all.
5. Remain lost
6. Cameron resigned
7. May came to be P.M.  Promises to honour the referendum result - with the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal"
8. Parliament passes the Article 50 bill, by a decent majority with again full oversight and approval by Parliament.  It clearly contains a fixed end date of March 2019
9. May hold a General Election on with Labour and Tory both campaign promising to leave.  Tory minority government results with Labour (who campaigned on a leaving ticket) the second biggest party.  BY FAR the majority of all MPs had campaigned on a promise to honour the referendum result.
10. May gets a 'deal' from the EU, but it is rejected - she goes back to the EU who show her the door (rather as they did with Cameron) and her deal fails twice more despite trying to work with Labour who also show her the door.  A new date is set of 31st October 2019 (date set by the EU)
11. May resigns to be succeeded by Johnson who promises to leave "deal or no deal" by 31st October 2019. 
12. Parliament tries repeatedly to derail Johnsons promise claiming;

• They had insufficient time
• No deal wasn't ever an option (despite 'taking it off' being rejected)

1. Johnson prorogues Parliament

How can they claim that the question weren't 'clear' and another referendum is needed?  They agreed the question at the time

How can the claim they have had insufficient time when they have had 3 years?

How can they claim 'no deal' wasn't an option when they passed the Article 50 bill and we had very clearly been told the "no deal was better than a bad deal"

John - not sure why you quoted my post. As you are fully aware a process is something very different to a plan, as Engineers I'm sure we both agree on that.

The points you raise at the end are valid; I would suggest they could be debated in Parliament - if BoJo hadn't shut it down...

I agree we need resolution one way or the other but for the life of me I don't get why alarm bells aren't ringing even in the most ardent Brexiteer minds that there is something fundamentally wrong with an action that has followed the process that Brexit has - if you equated the process to say a domestic issue or personal undertaking then any right minded person would have pulled the plug on it long ago.

[Newbie to this]

43 minutes ago, oowee said:

We could have no border for Ireland and no duty control mechanisms applied and in which case we would have to have the same arrangement for every country that we trade with

That is not quite true, you can have different rules under certain circumstances, and the old troubles in Ireland (that never really went away), meet that criteria.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Newbie to this

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

John - not sure why you quoted my post. As you are fully aware a process is something very different to a plan, as Engineers I'm sure we both agree on that.

The points you raise at the end are valid; I would suggest they could be debated in Parliament - if BoJo hadn't shut it down...

I agree we need resolution one way or the other but for the life of me I don't get why alarm bells aren't ringing even in the most ardent Brexiteer minds that there is something fundamentally wrong with an action that has followed the process that Brexit has - if you equated the process to say a domestic issue or personal undertaking then any right minded person would have pulled the plug on it long ago.

My point was that they only planned to win - and that didn't need much of  plan as it was 'status quo'.  Typical complacency of bullies like the EU and lazy slackers like Cameron

But the process involved Parliament at ALL stages; this idea now that they have had no time to discuss it, or "No deal" wasn't ever a 'real option' is absolute rubbish in polite terms!

You cannot just 'pull the plug' - because a promise was made - and has to be carried through.  This idea that "it all got a bit hard, so we cancelled it" is nonsense.  When it gets hard, you have to get in some hard nosed operators and get a bit hard with the obstacles - in this case Parliament.

The truth is that by proroguing, Johnson has cost Parliament about 4 or 5 days of business - because they would have recessed anyway for the party conference season for 3 weeks.  It is normal to prorogue after a session - and this last session has been the longest since the 18th century.  Normally Parliamentary sessions finish annually with a new session starting by a Queens speech - just as Johnson has arranged this time.

He has not 'taken over like a dictator' as McDonnell claims, Parliament will reopen with a Queens speech in the normal way on 14th October.  It just happens that this end of session coincides with the party conference season, making it a longer closure than usual.  It is the Prime Minister's choice when he wants a new session and Johnson has very sensibly used it to his advantage.  That is within the power of the Prime Minister - who is the only Government or Parliament official who can 'advise' the Queen as I understand the way it works. That is what Prime Ministers do.   Corbyn, Swinson, or Uncle Tom Cobleigh M.P. and all cannot simply get an audience and 'advise' the Queen.  They are simply M.Ps.

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

Why should there have been a plan?

That will become self-evident once we've left!

[Smokersmith]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree we need resolution one way or the other but for the life of me I don't get why alarm bells aren't ringing even in the most ardent Brexiteer minds that there is something fundamentally wrong with an action that has followed the process that Brexit has

I'm not a Brexiteer, but it is clear that parliament was getting in the way of progress.

Eliminating this 'quagmire' to move forwards is a positive action

 … I said when Boris was voted in, that it would need someone to be unpopular and 'extreme' to force things through … here we are, and many are glad of it.

[Gordon R]

Jacob Rees-Mogg nailed it yesterday. The only way to stop Brexit is to change the law or have an election. He threw down the gauntlet - let's see who picks it up. The Remain bunch talk tough about democracy, so it should be  walk in the park for them. Problem is that if we have an election, Labour could well be decimated and sitting Tory MPs (who oppose Boris) might not be fighting any election other than whether they remain a Tory candidate.

Then again - Labour could triumph. The party for the many, not the Jew, could shock us all and the squadron of pigs flying around my home.

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree we need resolution one way or the other but for the life of me I don't get why alarm bells aren't ringing even in the most ardent Brexiteer minds that there is something fundamentally wrong with an action that has followed the process that Brexit has - if you equated the process to say a domestic issue or personal undertaking then any right minded person would have pulled the plug on it long ago.

We need resolution - We now have one.

Something fundamentally wrong - Damn right, various groups have been trying to de rail the process of LEAVING , for the past 3 years !

Pulled the plug - Various politicians have been ardently trying to pull the plug on Brexit  since they LOST the referendum.

[Retsdon]

It all seems a long time ago now but when the EU Referendum Bill was discussed in 2015 all MPs were made aware of the following:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.'

It's funny how a story gets changed with the passage of time.

[Raja Clavata]

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

My point was that they only planned to win - and that didn't need much of  plan as it was 'status quo'.  Typical complacency of bullies like the EU and lazy slackers like Cameron

OK, agree they only planned to win.

But the process involved Parliament at ALL stages; this idea now that they have had no time to discuss it, or "No deal" wasn't ever a 'real option' is absolute rubbish in polite terms!

I would suggest no deal should never have been or still remain an option due to the potential impact it could have on our economy - nobody knows.

You cannot just 'pull the plug' - because a promise was made - and has to be carried through.  This idea that "it all got a bit hard, so we cancelled it" is nonsense.  When it gets hard, you have to get in some hard nosed operators and get a bit hard with the obstacles - in this case Parliament.

I believe you can, as we have agreed they only planned to win, "they" messed up, their only way out of this is to deliver the result otherwise they are finished, are they really doing it for the right reasons? In light of the reality of the complexity and potential fall out you can pull the plug, otherwise it starts to look like some kind of sunken cost fallacy?

The truth is that by proroguing, Johnson has cost Parliament about 4 or 5 days of business - because they would have recessed anyway for the party conference season for 3 weeks.  It is normal to prorogue after a session - and this last session has been the longest since the 18th century.  Normally Parliamentary sessions finish annually with a new session starting by a Queens speech - just as Johnson has arranged this time.

But this hasn't been a normal parliamentary session by any stretch of imagination. Unprecedented in my lifetime I believe.

He has not 'taken over like a dictator' as McDonnell claims, Parliament will reopen with a Queens speech in the normal way on 14th October.  It just happens that this end of session coincides with the party conference season, making it a longer closure than usual.  It is the Prime Minister's choice when he wants a new session and Johnson has very sensibly used it to his advantage.  That is within the power of the Prime Minister - who is the only Government or Parliament official who can 'advise' the Queen as I understand the way it works. That is what Prime Ministers do.   Corbyn, Swinson, or Uncle Tom Cobleigh M.P. and all cannot simply get an audience and 'advise' the Queen.  They are simply M.Ps.

I agree some of the claims are ridiculous and surely the majority can see through them.

 

[Rewulf]

Just now, Retsdon said:

It all seems a long time ago now but when the EU Referendum Bill was discussed in 2015 all MPs were made aware of the following:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.'

It's funny how a story gets changed with the passage of time.

Thats SOOOO 2017 Retsdon ! 

Seriously , they agreed to implement it , end of ! 

[Raja Clavata]

17 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

I'm not a Brexiteer, but it is clear that parliament was getting in the way of progress.

Eliminating this 'quagmire' to move forwards is a positive action

 … I said when Boris was voted in, that it would need someone to be unpopular and 'extreme' to force things through … here we are, and many are glad of it.

Has it occurred to you that some of the parliamentary resistance may have been an attempt to avoid us moving backwards? We supposedly elect MPs because they generally know better than us, that seems to have been forgotten in some quarters amidst the cries of traitors and whatever else...

[Retsdon]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Seriously , they agreed to implement it ,

Implement what exactly? Actually, I can tell you. There was a vote to trigger Article 50 and the government was tasked with negotiating an exit strategy with the EU. At no point was there a vote or an agreement to crash the country out of the EU come hell or high water. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Retsdon

[Rewulf]

Just now, Retsdon said:

Implement what exactly?

The result , leave or stay , or are you going to pull the other old chestnut of 'What kind of Brexit did we vote for ?'

[Raja Clavata]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

We need resolution - We now have one.

Time will tell on that.

[Rewulf]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

Time will tell on that.

Indeed it will.

[Capt Christopher Jones]

On 28/08/2019 at 15:09, harrycatcat1 said:

 

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

It's funny how a story gets changed with the passage of time.

Cameron, who called the referendum was VERY clear; Leave means leave were his words I think.

 

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

would suggest no deal should never have been or still remain an option

Nevertheless, it was, still is and was FULLY AGREED by Parliament

 

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I believe you can, as we have agreed they only planned to win

You cannot put genies back in boxes - no more can you just 'ignore' a democratic referendum result.

 

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

But this hasn't been a normal parliamentary session by any stretch of imagination.

No, it hasn't been 'normal', but it has been very long - and with a new P.M in place - 'a stop and restart' with a new Queens speech seems good sound sense to me.

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

surely the majority can see through them.

Well - they should be able to - like they should have seen and understood the backstop (bad word - I mean 'no deal') in article 50.  Never underestimate an MP's stupidity - that way they will never catch you by surprise!

Edited August 29, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Raja Clavata]

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Implement what exactly? Actually, I can tell you. There was a vote to trigger Article 50 and the government was tasked with negotiating an exit strategy with the EU. At no point was there a vote or an agreement to crash the country out of the EU come hell or high water. 

Exactly. Which leads to the point of the fact that...

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The result , leave or stay , or are you going to pull the other old chestnut of 'What kind of Brexit did we vote for ?'

Brexiteers need to be careful here, if they are saying it does not matter what kind of Brexit they voted for then they are by implication saying they are happy with a Brexit based on a modified WA. Can't have it both ways...

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

they are by implication saying they are happy with a Brexit based on a modified WA

Did anyone ever ASK them if that was what they wanted ,  BRINO costing £40 + billion , and a chance of never actually leaving properly ?

[KB1]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

The whole referendum process was approved by Parliament.

1. Cameron made the pledge to hold a referendum if he won in order to gain/hold seats he thought he might loose due to influence of UKIP splitting leave votes
2. Cameron tried to negotiate some concessions from the EU to enable him to win the referendum based on a remain campaign
3. The EU gave virtually nothing and showed him the door (something I suspect they now regret) with smug grins
4. Cameron held the referendum (June 2016) expecting remain to win despite having the ground pulled from under him by Juncker & Co.  The bill to hold it, the detailed question and all the process was fully agreed by Parliament.  We were clearly told that "leave meant leave", customs union, single market and all.
5. Remain lost
6. Cameron resigned
7. May came to be P.M.  Promises to honour the referendum result - with the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal"
8. Parliament passes the Article 50 bill, by a decent majority with again full oversight and approval by Parliament.  It clearly contains a fixed end date of March 2019
9. May hold a General Election on with Labour and Tory both campaign promising to leave.  Tory minority government results with Labour (who campaigned on a leaving ticket) the second biggest party.  BY FAR the majority of all MPs had campaigned on a promise to honour the referendum result.
10. May gets a 'deal' from the EU, but it is rejected - she goes back to the EU who show her the door (rather as they did with Cameron) and her deal fails twice more despite trying to work with Labour who also show her the door.  A new date is set of 31st October 2019 (date set by the EU)
11. May resigns to be succeeded by Johnson who promises to leave "deal or no deal" by 31st October 2019. 
12. Parliament tries repeatedly to derail Johnsons promise claiming;

• They had insufficient time
• No deal wasn't ever an option (despite 'taking it off' being rejected)

1. Johnson prorogues Parliament

How can they claim that the question weren't 'clear' and another referendum is needed?  They agreed the question at the time

How can the claim they have had insufficient time when they have had 3 years?

How can they claim 'no deal' wasn't an option when they passed the Article 50 bill and we had very clearly been told the "no deal was better than a bad deal"

 

33 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

My point was that they only planned to win - and that didn't need much of  plan as it was 'status quo'.  Typical complacency of bullies like the EU and lazy slackers like Cameron

But the process involved Parliament at ALL stages; this idea now that they have had no time to discuss it, or "No deal" wasn't ever a 'real option' is absolute rubbish in polite terms!

You cannot just 'pull the plug' - because a promise was made - and has to be carried through.  This idea that "it all got a bit hard, so we cancelled it" is nonsense.  When it gets hard, you have to get in some hard nosed operators and get a bit hard with the obstacles - in this case Parliament.

The truth is that by proroguing, Johnson has cost Parliament about 4 or 5 days of business - because they would have recessed anyway for the party conference season for 3 weeks.  It is normal to prorogue after a session - and this last session has been the longest since the 18th century.  Normally Parliamentary sessions finish annually with a new session starting by a Queens speech - just as Johnson has arranged this time.

He has not 'taken over like a dictator' as McDonnell claims, Parliament will reopen with a Queens speech in the normal way on 14th October.  It just happens that this end of session coincides with the party conference season, making it a longer closure than usual.  It is the Prime Minister's choice when he wants a new session and Johnson has very sensibly used it to his advantage.  That is within the power of the Prime Minister - who is the only Government or Parliament official who can 'advise' the Queen as I understand the way it works. That is what Prime Ministers do.   Corbyn, Swinson, or Uncle Tom Cobleigh M.P. and all cannot simply get an audience and 'advise' the Queen.  They are simply M.Ps.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit, It's hard to honestly dispute the above comments…….

[Raja Clavata]

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Cameron, who called the referendum was VERY clear; Leave means leave were his words I think.

Do you consider Cameron to be a man of integrity and honesty?