Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain

[Ron19]

A flame post has been removed.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

 

 

[kwilco]

Brexiteers seem to be pitifully engaged in only one activity, that of gainsaying criticisms or Brexit.

For years now on this site or anywhere else in the media for hat matter, there has NEVER been a single piece of good news or a single good positive comment, effect or result that can be attributed to Brexit.

Without any rhyme or reason ot support it, Brexit is solely an exercise in the negative.

Please tell us something positive that has come out of Brexit... we're waiting

[kwilco]

7 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

What we will end up with is a compromise deal in which neither party gets exactly what it wants but nevertheless one which does the least harm to all parties, simply because that is in the best interests of all 28 countries. 

 

The advantage to Britain will ultimately be freedom from Brussels, which is what the Brexit supporters wanted,  and the opportunity to do trade deals on its own with other countries outside the EU..  No-one is suggesting that there will be immediate  financial benefits, but many  posters on here fail to understand that not everything is about money.  It may surprise those posters to learn that many people voted for Brexit, including some ex-pats, even though realising that there could be some initial disadvantages and financial costs to them personally.

"No-one is suggesting that there will be immediate  financialbenefits,"

 

excuse me, that was what was promised all along!

..... Anyone who thinks we are getting "freedom" from anything by leaving the biggest free trade area in, the world and trying to compete is deluding themselves

[kwilco]

"It may surprise those posters to learn that many people voted for Brexit, including some ex-pats, even though realising that there could be some initial disadvantages and financial costs to them personally."

 

I think you'll find that it is precisely those who voted Brexit who will be the most surprised

[metisdead]

Posts in violation of fair use policy have been removed.  

 

Off topic bickering posts and the replies have been removed. 

[The Renegade]

At last a cartoon that I can agree with.

 

 

Seems fair to me 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

11 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Cannot agree with you more. “Yes” there has been shodowowy organizations and people trying to override the democratic decision of the British people.

 

 

 

Here's the problem with your post - for each spiv remainer you suggest, I can show you several Brexiteer figureheads every bit as odious, nauseating, and probably much, much dirtier. Let's be honest, if we are going to use the exuded aura of respectability of each the Leave/Remain camp leaders as weapons, you really are on a hiding to nothing. And don't forget, 37% ≠ 100%.

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, vogie said:

The ring leader of the EU referendum coup is finally exposed. ???

 

Maybe that explains why it is such an omnishambles! ?

[sandyf]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The EU is sharing security data.

 

They have said they will not continue to do so if the UK removes itself from European Human Rights Conventions.

 

1. The European Human Rights Conversation is nothing to do with the EU (so why is the UK proposing leaving the convention?).

 

2. The European nations bound by the convention cannot, under the convention, participate or condone the UK’s behaviour with respect to kidnap, torture and ‘secret rendition’ of terrorist suspects (refer my earlier post at #3).

 

The Brexit referendum gave no mandate to leave the European Human Rights Convention, it should never have been raised by Thersa May in the context of Brexit.

 

This is is absolutely not a matter of the EU threatening the UK, it is purely a matter of Theresa May making very unwise statements without thinking them through.

TM was campaigning to leave the ECHR well before the referendum act, as Home Secretary she saw it as an impediment to her hostile environment.

Brexit highlighted the complexity of leaving the ECHR in respect of the Belfast Agreement and the plan to leave got shelved until the next Tory manifesto, currently expected 2022.

The EU are quite right to look for a commitment not to renege on the Belfast Agreement after all there will no longer be any legal protection from future government action.

 

In finalising the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the UK Government undertook to complete the incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention of Human Rights, ensuring “direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency”.  The commitment was honoured in the text of the 1998 UK Human Rights Act, in particular Section 7, while the Irish Government moved to strengthen the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction by enacting the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.

https://www.iiea.com/brexit/brexit-the-good-friday-agreement-and-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

Brexiteers seem to be pitifully engaged in only one activity, that of gainsaying criticisms or Brexit.

For years now on this site or anywhere else in the media for hat matter, there has NEVER been a single piece of good news or a single good positive comment, effect or result that can be attributed to Brexit.

Without any rhyme or reason ot support it, Brexit is solely an exercise in the negative.

Please tell us something positive that has come out of Brexit... we're waiting

Depends on your outlook and point of view. Ask yourself what Brexit itself is attributable to?  

 

Hat Matter? Or Mad Hatter?

 

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, Johnnyondaspot said:

Britain deserves what's coming.  City dwelling, educated Brits should have turned out and voted.  The whole country will pay for a long time to come.

I would disagree, not everyone deserves what is coming, even a large percentage of the leavers. 

Those at the root of the problem are so well off it is not going to bother them.

Last sentence is spot on.

[stephenterry]

I'm in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way. The reasons should contain a net costing element.

 

That would be in accordance with a democratic society and an electoral population that has changed since 2016. Only two options: 'Accepted' or 'Not accepted'.  If the latter, parliament should vote on whatever course the government should take, and with a strict timeline to enact it.

 

So, for Brexiters and Remainers alike, it would be a definitive 'will of the people'.  I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group. And if older people complain that their rights are impinged, I would do a Boris on them, f*** you, like he did to Business, and for which he should have been fired from the cabinet.

 

In reality, it would never happen in my lifetime, which just goes to show that instead of Brexit being a beneficial process for the UK people, on the evidence to date with the economy losing £400 million a week since the 2016 referendum it's been an abject failure for both Brexiteers and Remainers - and has split the country into two camps - a bit like politics...

 

BTW - the one main reason TM is still carrying on with Brexit, is because none of the senior ministers  - who harbour leadership aims - would want to overthrow her to take over a doomed process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, aright said:

She has no plans to ignore human rights. It's simple she wants, the European Human rights Convention with a few modifications to be written into UK law. She said she was going to do this in 2016, after departure from the EU. I agree with her ….I would prefer to have this as a Convention designed specifically for the UK not the current all encompassing, one size fits all, document.

Are you arguing that human rights are not ‘one size fits all’?

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

18 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I'm in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way. The reasons should contain a net costing element.

 

That would be in accordance with a democratic society and an electoral population that has changed since 2016. Only two options: 'Accepted' or 'Not accepted'.  If the latter, parliament should vote on whatever course the government should take, and with a strict timeline to enact it.

 

So, for Brexiters and Remainers alike, it would be a definitive 'will of the people'.  I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group. And if older people complain that their rights are impinged, I would do a Boris on them, f*** you, like he did to Business, and for which he should have been fired from the cabinet.

 

In reality, it would never happen in my lifetime, which just goes to show that instead of Brexit being a beneficial process for the UK people, on the evidence to date with the economy losing £400 million a week since the 2016 referendum it's been an abject failure for both Brexiteers and Remainers - and has split the country into two camps - a bit like politics...

 

BTW - the one main reason TM is still carrying on with Brexit, is because none of the senior ministers  - who harbour leadership aims - would want to overthrow her to take over a doomed process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, there has been some ridiculous posts on this thread so far, but if it runs for another 500 pages, none will have a hope in hell of topping your senseless, smug arrogant drivel. You are the taker of the biscuit, first prize is yours, pin a rose on yourself

 

***I’m in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way ***

 

You mean like the government didn't try and influence the referendum vote by spending £9 million of taxpayers money sending a leaflet to every household advising everyone to vote remain

 

 

 

***I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group ***

 

The remainers idea of democracy, beautifully illustrated. Let's find an age group that can guarantee the result we want, and exclude everyone else from voting. I bet even other remainers on this forum cringe when they read that tosh

[stephenterry]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

Brexiteers seem to be pitifully engaged in only one activity, that of gainsaying criticisms or Brexit.

For years now on this site or anywhere else in the media for hat matter, there has NEVER been a single piece of good news or a single good positive comment, effect or result that can be attributed to Brexit.

Without any rhyme or reason ot support it, Brexit is solely an exercise in the negative.

Please tell us something positive that has come out of Brexit... we're waiting

Well, the referendum result contributed to Brexit, even though it was not compulsory for any government to enact it. and, IMO, the main reasons why leavers voted was threefold:

 

1. That the NHS would financially benefit from it,

2. That freedom of movement immigrants would take over UK jobs and plague the streets with terrorist attacks,

3. High unemployment north of the Watford gap.  

 

All of these reasons were attributable to the EU, when in effect successive UK governments refused to fund traditional British industry and let them close down.   

 

As to the Brexit future, leaving what the EU beneficially offers to the UK in many key aspects is a vision of disfunctional dystopia.     

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

The remainers idea of democracy, beautifully illustrated. Let's find an age group that can guarantee the result we want, and exclude everyone else from voting. I bet even other remainers on this forum cringe when they read that tosh

So why use fatuous hyperbole such as 'remainers idea of democracy' if you accept, in your very next sentence, that this is not a universal view of remainers? You are not a headline writer for the Daily Fail, are you?

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Well, there has been some ridiculous posts on this thread so far, but if it runs for another 500 pages, none will have a hope in hell of topping your senseless, smug arrogant drivel. You are the taker of the biscuit, first prize is yours, pin a rose on yourself

 

***I’m in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way ***

 

You mean like the government didn't try and influence the referendum vote by spending £9 million of taxpayers money sending a leaflet to every household advising everyone to vote remain

 

 

 

***I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group ***

 

The remainers idea of democracy, beautifully illustrated. Let's find an age group that can guarantee the result we want, and exclude everyone else from voting. I bet even other remainers on this forum cringe when they read that tosh

 

Glad you like it. Very charitable of you.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

I'm in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way. The reasons should contain a net costing element.

 

That would be in accordance with a democratic society and an electoral population that has changed since 2016. Only two options: 'Accepted' or 'Not accepted'.  If the latter, parliament should vote on whatever course the government should take, and with a strict timeline to enact it.

 

So, for Brexiters and Remainers alike, it would be a definitive 'will of the people'.  I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group. And if older people complain that their rights are impinged, I would do a Boris on them, f*** you, like he did to Business, and for which he should have been fired from the cabinet.

 

In reality, it would never happen in my lifetime, which just goes to show that instead of Brexit being a beneficial process for the UK people, on the evidence to date with the economy losing £400 million a week since the 2016 referendum it's been an abject failure for both Brexiteers and Remainers - and has split the country into two camps - a bit like politics...

 

BTW - the one main reason TM is still carrying on with Brexit, is because none of the senior ministers  - who harbour leadership aims - would want to overthrow her to take over a doomed process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Well, there has been some ridiculous posts on this thread so far, but if it runs for another 500 pages, none will have a hope in hell of topping your senseless, smug arrogant drivel. You are the taker of the biscuit, first prize is yours, pin a rose on yourself

 

***I’m in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way ***

 

You mean like the government didn't try and influence the referendum vote by spending £9 million of taxpayers money sending a leaflet to every household advising everyone to vote remain

 

 

 

***I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group ***

 

The remainers idea of democracy, beautifully illustrated. Let's find an age group that can guarantee the result we want, and exclude everyone else from voting. I bet even other remainers on this forum cringe when they read that tosh

48 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Well, there has been some ridiculous posts on this thread so far, but if it runs for another 500 pages, none will have a hope in hell of topping your senseless, smug arrogant drivel. You are the taker of the biscuit, first prize is yours, pin a rose on yourself

 

***I’m in favour of a people's vote on whatever deal or no deal that transpires prior to leaving the EU. The deal  or no deal parameters and reasons must be stated in clear concise neutral language without any attempt by the government to influence the vote either way ***

 

You mean like the government didn't try and influence the referendum vote by spending £9 million of taxpayers money sending a leaflet to every household advising everyone to vote remain

 

 

 

***I would go one step further - only voters aged 45 or less should be permitted to vote, because the after effects of Brexit would impinge on the younger generation more than any other age-group ***

 

The remainers idea of democracy, beautifully illustrated. Let's find an age group that can guarantee the result we want, and exclude everyone else from voting. I bet even other remainers on this forum cringe when they read that tosh

Agree entirely EP, but you should have included:-

"The reasons should contain a net costing element."

 

Surely we all know by now that this is impossible to know, and could only ever be an opinion?

 

Plus:-

"Only two options: 'Accepted' or 'Not accepted'.  If the latter, parliament should vote on whatever course the government should take, and with a strict timeline to enact it."

 

The decision to leave should be taken away from the electorate and given to MPs, who are almost entirely remainers. edit (even if they pretend otherwise nowadays, for the sake of their electoral chances at the next election).....

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

Missed out on:-

"So, for Brexiters and Remainers alike, it would be a definitive 'will of the people'"

 

It most certainly wouldn't be the definitive will of the people - it would be the definitive will of those who know parliament would prefer to remain, and so prefer that the will of the people should be over-ridden by parliament....

[Chomper Higgot]

There’s no point arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum, right now the concern is the government doesn’t have anything agreed within its own cabinet to put on the negotiating table.

 

What an utter shambles?!

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Missed out on:-

"So, for Brexiters and Remainers alike, it would be a definitive 'will of the people'"

 

It most certainly wouldn't be the definitive will of the people - it would be the definitive will of those who know parliament would prefer to remain, and so prefer that the will of the people should be over-ridden by parliament....

Oh, for goodness sake, read it properly. If voters ACCEPT the deal or no deal, that's it. Nothing to do with parliament. It's only  if voters don't accept the deal or no deal would parliament be involved. 

 

And in the scenario above, the government could not spend money on influencing the vote, and the cost element would be based on government assessments, not something picked out of thin air.

 

Is that clearer? 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s no point arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum, right now the concern is the government doesn’t have anything agreed within its own cabinet to put on the negotiating table.

 

What an utter shambles?!

I disagree that "there's no point in arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum".  Apart from the fact that us arguing about it will change nothing ?!

 

So far the uk govt. has pretty much capitulated to the eu's 'negotiaing' (ha ha) agenda, and parliament are doing their best to ensure the softest leave possible (the worst of all possible worlds).

 

If this continues and we end up with a 'leave in name only' final deal - I think it has to go back to the electorate.

[stephenterry]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s no point arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum, right now the concern is the government doesn’t have anything agreed within its own cabinet to put on the negotiating table.

 

What an utter shambles?!

Not a  referendum but a people's vote on the final deal or no deal  that must be presented to parliament before March 2019. Which was the aim of the government - as TM said, to benefit the whole UK.

 

Apart from that, I could envisage a government 'white paper' issued in July that hits the negotiation table and is rejected by the EU, because they would call it cherry-picking. It's about time people realise the UK has little cards to play - they are leaving and that's that, even if a deal cannot be reached.

 

And if and when that happens, the Uk is certainly going to be an island state.  

 

 

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Not a  referendum but a people's vote on the final deal or no deal  that must be presented to parliament before March 2019. Which was the aim of the government - as TM said, to benefit the whole UK.

 

Apart from that, I could envisage a government 'white paper' issued in July that hits the negotiation table and is rejected by the EU, because they would call it cherry-picking. It's about time people realise the UK has little cards to play - they are leaving and that's that, even if a deal cannot be reached.

 

And if and when that happens, the Uk is certainly going to be an island state.  

 

 

I have just rang the PM up with your idea, she said 'no deal'

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I disagree that "there's no point in arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum".  Apart from the fact that us arguing about it will change nothing ?!

 

So far the uk govt. has pretty much capitulated to the eu's 'negotiaing' (ha ha) agenda, and parliament are doing their best to ensure the softest leave possible (the worst of all possible worlds).

 

If this continues and we end up with a 'leave in name only' final deal - I think it has to go back to the electorate.

There in lies the genius of answering the question ‘what does Brexit mean?’ with ‘Brexit = Brexit’.

 

I wonder if that’s what Theresa May will put to her cabinet this week.

 

What an utter shambles?!

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I disagree that "there's no point in arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum".  Apart from the fact that us arguing about it will change nothing ?!

 

So far the uk govt. has pretty much capitulated to the eu's 'negotiaing' (ha ha) agenda, and parliament are doing their best to ensure the softest leave possible (the worst of all possible worlds).

 

If this continues and we end up with a 'leave in name only' final deal - I think it has to go back to the electorate.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There in lies the genius of answering the question ‘what does Brexit mean?’ with ‘Brexit = Brexit’.

 

I wonder if that’s what Theresa May will put to her cabinet this week.

 

What an utter shambles?!

But that wasn't the point I answered.....

 

You are the one that didn't answer the points raised, preferring to answer un-asked questions!

 

Big companies and politicians do this a lot, and it annoyed the hell out of me then - and still does now.

[bristolboy]

35 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I disagree that "there's no point in arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum".  Apart from the fact that us arguing about it will change nothing ?!

 

So far the uk govt. has pretty much capitulated to the eu's 'negotiaing' (ha ha) agenda, and parliament are doing their best to ensure the softest leave possible (the worst of all possible worlds).

 

If this continues and we end up with a 'leave in name only' final deal - I think it has to go back to the electorate.

So if a deal is made for a soft brexit it should go back to the electorate? And if a deal is made for a hard brexit, what should happen then?

[stephenterry]

33 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I disagree that "there's no point in arguing over putting the final deal to a referendum".  Apart from the fact that us arguing about it will change nothing ?!

So far the uk govt. has pretty much capitulated to the eu's 'negotiaing' (ha ha) agenda, and parliament are doing their best to ensure the softest leave possible (the worst of all possible worlds).

If this continues and we end up with a 'leave in name only' final deal - I think it has to go back to the electorate.

It could be - probably certainly - that parliament has a better idea of what would happen to their constituencies than the cabinet. The collective 'wisdom' of parliament is most likely the most realistic and most workable even though it would cost a darn sight more, because of TM's crusade in driving through Brexit, whatever the outcome.

 

Let's see what the 'white paper' envisages... 

 

[Expatthailover]

Silly old public school Oxbridge educated old trouts that are the tory party, are too busy selling the return of maypoles in village squares, a return to empirical measurements etc to little englanders than to dirty their hands in real politicking and decisionmaking

[dick dasterdly]

16 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

It could be - probably certainly - that parliament has a better idea of what would happen to their constituencies than the cabinet. The collective 'wisdom' of parliament is most likely the most realistic and most workable even though it would cost a darn sight more, because of TM's crusade in driving through Brexit, whatever the outcome.

 

Let's see what the 'white paper' envisages... 

 

"It could be - probably certainly - that parliament has a better idea of what would happen to their constituencies than the cabinet."

 

I agree with this to a certain extent.

 

MPs in leave constituencies are very aware that they could well be voted out at the next GE if they overtly support remain....  On the other hand, whilst the cabinet are also v. aware of what could happen if they overtly try to stop the leave vote, at least their seats are safe?  So either way, they're trying to find a way to get a 'leave in name only' result - without the majority of MPs in leave areas losing their seats.....

 

As for " The collective 'wisdom' of parliament" ?!

 

Have you already forgotten that they supported the war in Iraq??  They clearly had zero knowledge on the issue, and few could be bothered to point out why the 'arguments' presented were more than inadequate....

 

In short, I'm always amazed by those that think that parliament are more knowledgeable, and should be trusted ?!

Edited July 1, 2018 by dick dasterdly