JonnyF

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

Just using the argument that Brexiteers constantly use, "There was only remain and leave on the ballot paper" Does that only apply when it suits you?

 

Mogg and Johnson voted against it twice, for it once. That's 2 to 1. Don't you believe in democracy? 555

 

It's not a remain parliament. Both the government and opposition are led by Brexiteers. Own it.

Yes Remain and Leave. Leave Won. A Remain parliament is blocking a deal and blocking no deal. And blocking an election. It's not complicated.

Fortunately, Boris won't resign because of some rigged court ruling. The Remain parties know they would lose an election so they won't have the stones to call one because most of them will lose their jobs, so this decision simply means Parliament comes back to sit. Their little holiday is over. Back where we started. The endless loop. The Zombie Parliament. Remainers have succeeded in dragging this uncertainty on for a few more months. And they're celebrating that like it's a victory ????.

9 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Updated as had been expected.

Interesting that the judge that threw it out was Hickinbottom, a fellow of the ELI. 

No bias there then. ????

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Forgive me, completely re-written to remove your previous mid representation of the truth.

 

 

Again, which post? I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you do not either.

If I changed a post it was have a line underneath saying "edited by..." 

So which post was it?

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So now you edit.

 

(without admitting I was right to call out your misrepresentation of the truth).

Which post did I edit? 

15 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

Multiple convictions of electoral fraud prove it was not a democratic vote, stop pretending otherwise. 

The majority of UK citizens most certainly did not vote to Leave, as you put it, that is a lie. 17.4 million people out of over 60 million is a majority now?

I said a majority of those who voted, therefore it is not a lie. Elections are won and lost based on those who vote. That's how Democracy works. Your argument that it shouldn't count because under 18's, people in jail, people who don't care etc. did not vote is ridiculous.

Of those who voted, a majority voted to Leave. Get it? Same as how governments get elected to power. It's always been that way. It's not complicated. ????????

3 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

What part of "if these individuals had voted for Mays deal we would be out now", don't you understand?

I understand the content, but it bears no resemblance to the truth. See my previous post for some facts.

2 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

At the time, parliament was dominated by the Tories. If they'd all voted for May's deal, it would have passed. Didn't the tories sit on a manifesto of Leave? The only one clutching at straws and trying tp deflect the blame away from Johnson, Mogg et al, is you.

Since when did Remainers honour a manifesto promise? Most of them can't lie straight in bed. Relying on Remain Tories to honor what they promised the public in a manifesto is futile. They can't honor promises to their own party or their own constituents.

Johnson and Mogg (and Raab) voted for the deal. It still failed. Those are the facts. Remainers blocked the deal. Remainers blocked No Deal. Remainers are blocking the election. They have brought the country to a standstill because they cannot accept losing ????.

3 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

How dare you use the anti-democratic label when the leave side committed so much fraud?

Evidence please. If you haven't been keeping up, here's an article from yesterday. In fairness it was easy to miss because the Remainstream media have completely ignored. it.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/24/leave-eu-founder-arron-banks-didnt-break-law-brexit-campaign-funding-10799893/

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The majority of UK citizens did not vote to leave.

This is boring. The majority of those who voted wanted to Leave. If you don't vote or are not eligible to vote then it does not count. That's the way Democracy has always worked. Otherwise, we'd never have a majority government. It's a very weak argument, and you know it.

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

We could have left in March but Brexit fundamentalists blocked it.

Parliament is predominately made up of Remainers. So how could a few Brexiteers block it? It was a Remain Parliament that blocked it. The likes of Johnson and Rees Mogg voted for it he 3rd time and it still failed. 

You are clutching at straws to hide your anti-democratic views. You are right to hide them, they are extremely undesirable in 21st Century Britain ????.

13 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

And you dont think old Etonians like Johnson, Cameron and Reese Mogg are not establishment?

These individuals are supporting the majority of UK citizens that voted to Leave. Not trying to over-ride the Democratic vote like the HOC, the Civil service and the House of Lords.

So there we go. The supreme court agrees with Miller. Surprise Surprise. 

48 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Unfortunately the UK courts are now corrupt. Not to be trusted under any circumstances. 

I'm inclined to agree. The way Gina Miller's Pro Remain case has gone through 3 courts in a couple of weeks is amazing considering how Robin Tilbrook's Pro Leave case has been dragging on for months and months. His case was actually thrown out by a judge (Lord justice Hickinbottam) who is a member of the European Law Institute which is partly funded by the EU and are activists for strengthening EU law! No bias there then.

2 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

What harm would it do?

It would undermine the entire process. Each side would release a different version of the negotiations to suit their own agenda. Parliament would use the additional time/information to find ways to legally challenge/legislate against whatever was being discussed. It would become even more farcical than it is now.

15 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

So, you British, coem with a mature solution. From the moment Cameron came with the idea for a referendum ( 23 of Jan 2013) , you had time to come with YOUR wishes how to organise a Brexit. The only the EU knows till now is... no, no, no, no, no.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7960

With the greatest respect, that is nonsense. Had the EU offered us a sensible deal with benefits to both sides it would be done and dusted by now.

Unfortunately we have a Remain Parliament colluding with the EU to keep us in. The EU offers terrible terms essentially making the UK a vassal state, Parliament rejects them, also rejects No Deal and then rejects an election to break the deadlock. The EU and Parliament have colluded to create a deadlock as it's the best way to keep us from leaving. 

Unfortunately for them, all this has done is strengthen Leaver's resolve. 

1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

Why would it need to be leaked? Why not give it to the press? Shurely parliament has the right to have sight of it too.....oh, I forgot, they're prorogued for 5 weeks.

 

 

Parliament can vote on the deal after the government has agreed it. They don't need a running commentary, and neither do the press.

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Why does the EU need to solve the brexiteers problems?

You guys voted for it so you guys own it.

Johnson has no plan. All this talk of keeping proposals secret is just stringing you brexiteers along.

You are being played.

Your view is overly simplistic, and dare I say a bit childish. It is not just Brexiteers who will have a problem if this is not resolved. The EU will suffer as well, (as my link showed) so it is in their interests to help find a resolution. 

You could argue Brexit caused the issue (I however would argue that Brexit is a symptom of problems created by the EU) but that doesn't mean it's "brexiteers problems". A more mature approach would be to work together to find a solution, not just throw a tantrum and say "your problem, you fix it". The EU's tactic of demanding proposal after proposal from the UK which is then deliberately leaked to the press and publicly dismissed is neither clever nor helpful.

15 hours ago, damascase said:

He still hasn’t put forward a formal proposal in Brussels, so why would New York change anything?

Why would he make a formal proposal? So the EU can leak it to the press and then dismiss it out of hand again? 

I think we've seen enough of that in the last 3 years, let the EU come up with something for once. At least they are finally starting to slowly wake up to the fact this affects both sides.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/23/no-deal-brexit-will-have-seismic-impact-says-european-car-industry

13 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok.

And with different laws, custom, etc. where would you put the border?

Or do you imagine that without any border there wouldn't be smugglers, people who cross the border illegally, etc.?

I'd have a customs checkpoint a few miles away from the border. You're never going to be able to 100% stop people crossing borders illegally or smuggling, any more than Thailand can stop people crossing over the hundreds of kms of border that separate Thailand from Cambodia, Laos or Myanmar with a suitcase/boat full of contraband.

We already have different VAT rates, currency etc. between the North and the Republic. Different rates on certain goods wouldn't be as big an issue as some are pretending, especially if the trade deal was comprehensive. After all, a free trade deal would negate the need for too many checks.