[Politics] Brexit

[dazzer6666]

I take your point of course but you rather proved the point you're arguing against - the 70s referendum didn't take us into the EU.

Didn’t realise I was arguing....just asking a question....

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A simplistic response that ignores the central point that if the question was asked again there would be far more information available to voters, and a far clearer perspective on the likely effects of voting one way or the other, than there was 18 months ago.
If, in these circumstances, people voted to Leave the EU then that would clearly be that.

You imply in your post that anyone voting for a particular party in a general election by definition supports every aspect of that party's manifesto. I think you're wrong but perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Finally, there have been occasions when voters have been faced with second referendums on EU issues but in most of these cases - Ireland and Denmark particularly spring to mind - the second referendum followed major policy changes designed to meet the voters' stated concerns.

A factual response that you can't avoid no matter how much you try.

There you go again ... referendums are a terrible idea, too simplistic for complicated decisions and General Elections don't count either because they are too vague as we don't really know what specfic manifesto commitments the voters are endorsing. Clearly the only vote worth having is at a time of your choosing which ends up agreeing with your pov when all your complaints will no doubt evaporate.... brilliant.

Finally, we know the EU doesn't really much care about the democratic mandate of a member state government or referendum result (see Greece) and will rename a constitution to avoid democratic scrutiny.

But the only reason one of the main parties would adopt a new policy on the implementation of Brexit would be as a result of the people's view on the matter changing... Democracy.

So you also support parties reneging on their manifesto commitments .. very democratic.

 

[nicko31]

Green sacked

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...secretary-first-images-computer-a8086826.html

Does that mean we get the BOGOF and DD goes too?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I demand a statement by @JC Footy Genius to clear all this Tory/Brexit sleaze up.

I would prefer it if you didn't make up quotes from me and think it's probably a good idea if you don't post when drunk.

End of statement.

 

[Gwylan]

O come on, Maastricht and Lisbon treaties were greatly different from Rome,In 1983 there were a handful of countries in, plenty hadnt even applied to join yet or been granted into the club. There was no East Germany, Spain,Sweden or any of the East European countries in 83. What we have now is a vastly different kettle of fish.
.

In what way is it vastly different?

Here's the preamble to the Treaty of Rome

Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,

Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

Recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

Desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

All the elements of Maastricht and Lisbon are there: the move towards more integration, the expansion of eastern Europe, a bigger trade bloc. Everything in the EU today was set out, as an aim, in 1957.

What would make it very different is the establishment of a European army - that's certainly not part of the Treaty of Rome but we've not reached that stage.

 

[pastafarian]

In what way is it vastly different?

Here's the preamble to the Treaty of Rome

Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,

Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

Recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

Desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

All the elements of Maastricht and Lisbon are there: the move towards more integration, the expansion of eastern Europe, a bigger trade bloc. Everything in the EU today was set out, as an aim, in 1957.

What would make it very different is the establishment of a European army - that's certainly not part of the Treaty of Rome but we've not reached that stage.

If you believe The EU in 2016 was no different to the EEC in 1983, then its rather pointless pointing out to you it isnt

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This thread is embarrassing. As is Brexit. Thank goodness that, globally, we have presidents Kim and Trump, like big stinky turds, keeping the flies off the bride (us).

 

[pastafarian]

Brextremists get apoplectic if you say that sort of thing. Ive no idea why. .

If there was a further referendum

Cable is calling for a vote on the final deal a year from now with a bill starting in April

https://news.sky.com/story/liberal-democrats-call-for-second-eu-referendum-in-december-2018-11178315

No one is being apoplectic over another referendum, just pointing out how when all the evidence tells you there will not be one its rather silly to carry on banging on about one. We all understand though you are clinging onto it for dear life as your last hope of overturning the vote to Leave.

This evening in Parliament however….

MPs vote on a second referendum - Amendment 120
Tabled by Vince Cable

Amendment 120 to the European Withdrawal Bill is intended to ensure that before March 2019 (or the end of any extension to the two year negotiation period) a referendum on the terms of the deal has to be held.

Ayes 23 Noes 319
Yes that really is 23 and NOT a typo

I wonder when the penny will drop?



And just for good measure, members tonight voted in The EU Withdrawal Bill in favour (319-294) of 11.00 P.M 29 March 2019 and against remaining in The Customs Union (320-114).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No one is being apoplectic over another referendum, just pointing out how when all the evidence tells you there will not be one its rather silly to carry on banging on about one. We all understand though you are clinging onto it for dear life as your last hope of overturning the vote to Leave.

This evening in Parliament however….

MPs vote on a second referendum - Amendment 120
Tabled by Vince Cable

Amendment 120 to the European Withdrawal Bill is intended to ensure that before March 2019 (or the end of any extension to the two year negotiation period) a referendum on the terms of the deal has to be held.

Ayes 23 Noes 319
Yes that really is 23 and NOT a typo

I wonder when the penny will drop?



And just for good measure, members tonight voted in The EU Withdrawal Bill in favour (319-294) of 11.00 P.M 29 March 2019 and against remaining in The Customs Union (320-114).

I hear what you’re saying. But let’s see how it pans out once the nonces and the perverts of your government have been dealt with. I’m sure you will agree, it’s difficult to make judgements when you have sex cases in the mix. Give me a normal Tory party to pass judgement on.

 

[Baldseagull]

That wasn't my point but I guess there has been some confusion. Ultimately I understand your position that there should be a vote on the final deal. However the final deal does not represent the eventual outcome of Brexit which will not be known for some time after we have left the EU.

Sounds like you don't know what you voted for?

 

[Baldseagull]

The people have democratically decided on two occasions that Brexit should be enacted. If you want to keep asking them the question you are clearly ignoring their previous instructions. Difficult for some to grasp but there you go. The good old keep asking a question in the hope you eventually get the answer you want gambit .... how very EU.

I assume you are using the last GE result as a second approval for Brexit, a very weak argument.

 

[Baldseagull]

The point is you have now locked in to some perceived change in peoples view and using it as some new found wisdom that might justify an challenge of the initial referendum result, none of this was in your psyche when you were posting a similar desire to re-run the race just one day after the result for no particular reason other than it wasn't in line with your vote.

It suggests you're a fraud, you have no particular principles on what might be the wishes of the UK's electorate at any particular time, you just want Brexit not to happen no matter how that happens.

I would happily admit to you that I want to stop the exit and remain, as I live in a democracy, I need a majority of the people to agree with me, I think there is a good chance that this is possible.

 

[Baldseagull]

No one is being apoplectic over another referendum, just pointing out how when all the evidence tells you there will not be one its rather silly to carry on banging on about one. We all understand though you are clinging onto it for dear life as your last hope of overturning the vote to Leave.

This evening in Parliament however….

MPs vote on a second referendum - Amendment 120
Tabled by Vince Cable

Amendment 120 to the European Withdrawal Bill is intended to ensure that before March 2019 (or the end of any extension to the two year negotiation period) a referendum on the terms of the deal has to be held.

Ayes 23 Noes 319
Yes that really is 23 and NOT a typo

I wonder when the penny will drop?



And just for good measure, members tonight voted in The EU Withdrawal Bill in favour (319-294) of 11.00 P.M 29 March 2019 and against remaining in The Customs Union (320-114).

After passing amendment 399, which allows the date to be moved, so a bit pointless really.

 

[pastafarian]

Whatever.

Any view on fellow Conservative and Unionist PERVERT Damien Green?

Ah "whatever", the usual clamp school of response when you realise you have been a bit dim.

View on Green? Not really, well not with regards to Brexit anyway.
After an inquiry he was found to have made inaccurate and misleading statements over what he knew about claims pornography was found on his office computer in 2008. This broke the ministerial code and because of it he has been asked to resign.
If you break the code you should resign, I agree with him having to go.

I am more interested in your desperation to link his actions as Brexit related on the Brexit thread, surely there are numerous treads you could mention your interest of Mr Green on, wasn’t there a thread on him? You are coming across as rather desperate and purely focused on your hatred of the tories to the detriment of reasoned argument of Leaving the EU………is your position drink related again?

As an aside you do know labelling someone Conservative and Unionist isnt an insult dont you? You use it in a manner as if it is. You can just say Tory, works exactly the same.

 

[pastafarian]

After passing amendment 399, which allows the date to be moved, so a bit pointless really.

I agree with you all a bit pointless, the wording was changed from the original using amendments 381 and 399(?) to placate the Tory rebels and avoid a defeat to ensure this clause stays in and the bill continues on its course. As I said a few weeks ago it doesn’t really add much, the original wording was poor and seems more symbolic than anything. Thought I would mention it anyway as a few crackers remainers got their knickers in a right twist about its addition originally(almost as if they had to wake up to the reality that we are leaving.), at least they wont be still furious at its addition now given the wording. They can now stupidly cling on to false hope Brexit wont happen.

Still, a good night for the Brexit process through parliamentary democracy, a concrete vote we will not be staying in The Customs Union, perhaps finally people will stop the pretence of staying in it, and what can only be described as a destruction of the second referendumers position again. I don’t expect for one second though this tiny minority will give up calling for it, they have after all nothing left in the tank to stop Brexit happening……perhaps dave clamp Lincoln berty and others will now place their focus on more realistic arguments though.

Awaits usual bizarre referencing from clamp about what time people post on this thread.

 

[pastafarian]

Anyway. My holiday starts today. See you all in the new year.

I hear what you’re saying. But let’s see how it pans out once the nonces and the perverts of your government have been dealt with. I’m sure you will agree, it’s difficult to make judgements when you have sex cases in the mix. Give me a normal Tory party to pass judgement on.

Im thinking you should have stuck to your original schedule of coming back in the new year before you decided this post was far too important not to be written and shared.
See you in the new year.........but most probably well before then.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

View attachment 92154

Sign of desperation playing the man not the ball and it's getting rather tedious that you keep doing it.

 

[pastafarian]

Sign of desperation playing the man not the ball.

Arguably a bit of a low blow as well.
But no doubt the class warrior Momentum lover sees it as the new friendlier face of politics that Jeremy was promoting.And Brexit related as well in his special hate filled warped version of not understanding people voted to Leave from all political persuasions, not just Tories.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I take your point of course but you rather proved the point you're arguing against - the 70s referendum didn't take us into the EU.

yes it did, i don't remember being given an option about joining the EU
regards
DR

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Sounds like you don't know what you voted for?

On the contrary I know exactly what I voted for