May is said to withdraw parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal

[oldhippy]

Maybe this was posted already - but no harm in watching it again.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isgt0VBxJaA

 

[oldhippy]

.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

10 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t think there will be a referendum. May, the Brexit accomplice, will wait until the last minute to force parliament into a choice between a no deal Brexit and her deal Brexit. As prime minister, it would have been her job to declare the manipulated vote that happened two years ago void and restore democracy by making the manipulators face consequence for their actions. Instead, she is acting as an accomplice for the Brexit gangsters and betraying the people who are were lied to. 

Well, I have read some absolute rubbish on here about Brexit over the last couple of years, but your post beats them all.  Declare the referendum vote VOID?  Restore democracy by doing so?  Make the manipulators face the consequences of their action?  How exactly, by Jailing them?   Accomplice to the Brexit gangsters?  Betraying the people who were lied to?   

 

What on earth are you drinking?   

[Dumbastheycome]

Doomed if do, doomed if  don't.

And after so much bs and more bs what do the more recently made aware people want? 

Not to be asked it seems.

Mushroom farm !

 

 

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, vinny41 said:

 

If thats the case why not ask people every 5 years the question on EU membership Yes / No

To which point do you respond?

 

I responded to your idea of firing all MPs and getting them to stand as independents on a leave or Remain ticket.

 

Concerning referendums, in the U.K. Referendums are automatically advisory unless the act says otherwise. Using a referendum to ask an opinion is a cop out generally. The only time a referendum IS acceptable is to ratify a decision already taken by parliament or decline to do so.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

But you miss the point, you say should never, but it was agreed by Parliament to have one, they passed a bill to allow the British electorate to have a vote whether to leave or remain in the EU. As we all know now the British public voted to leave. It was also promised to the British public that whatever the result was it would be enacted on, not we will think about what you said and remain all the same, but thanks for turning up and wasting 2 hours of your valuable time, time that could have been put to better use like washing our whippets or getting the thumb marks off our flat caps where we have doffed them to our superiors.

But I've said it once and I'll say it again, some people on here are so selfish, brexit is all about them.

At this time we should stick to facts

 

The act passed by parliament did not make the result compulsory

 

Cameron had a decent majority at the time and he committed the CON government to deliver the result. He presumably assumed that even with a few dissenters in his party he was safe to say so.

 

May's disastrous GE means parliament gets to decide with no clear CON majority.

 

FACTS

[welovesundaysatspace]

42 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Well, I have read some absolute rubbish on here about Brexit over the last couple of years, but your post beats them all.  Declare the referendum vote VOID?  Restore democracy by doing so?  Make the manipulators face the consequences of their action?  How exactly, by Jailing them?   Accomplice to the Brexit gangsters?  Betraying the people who were lied to?   

 

What on earth are you drinking?   

Red bus anyone? Or do we need to go into the details? Bunch of liars. 

[mommysboy]

Independent Live:

 

Interesting moment in the Chamber just now - the chancellor Philip Hammond told his opposite number John McDonnell to vote for the Brexit deal on the table at the moment.

 

But the Commons Speaker John Bercow interrupted: "It's quite difficult to vote for something if there isn't a vote."

[AGareth2]

49 minutes ago, Grouse said:

To which point do you respond?

 

I responded to your idea of firing all MPs and getting them to stand as independents on a leave or Remain ticket.

 

Concerning referendums, in the U.K. Referendums are automatically advisory unless the act says otherwise. Using a referendum to ask an opinion is a cop out generally. The only time a referendum IS acceptable is to ratify a decision already taken by parliament or decline to do so.

never ask a question that you don't know the answer 

plonker

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Well, I have read some absolute rubbish on here about Brexit over the last couple of years, but your post beats them all.  Declare the referendum vote VOID?  Restore democracy by doing so?  Make the manipulators face the consequences of their action?  How exactly, by Jailing them?   Accomplice to the Brexit gangsters?  Betraying the people who were lied to?   

 

What on earth are you drinking?   

 I also have read some absolute rubbish on here about Brexit over the last couple of years, but your post is way up there with the most ill informed.

 

Here is a standard tongue in cheek contribution from the wonderful “Daily Mash”, which treats  pretentious poseurs, fools, ideologues, pseuds, etc with the same disdain and irreverence, whatever their opinions - always refreshing reading that you just sign up for - no cost.

I believe it may answer your point

"Second referendum to include ‘Are you an idiot?’

ANOTHER vote on leaving the EU should include questions designed to weed out total idiots, it has been claimed.

The Institute for Studies has been investigating how to prevent the vote being swayed by people who live in a Murdoch-fuelled fantasy world and have zero common sense, like last time.

Professor Henry Brubaker said: “The obvious question is ‘Are you an idiot?’ but most idiots think they’re geniuses so they’ll say ‘no’ even if they’re too thick to understand the concept of lying.

“It’s better to ask things like ‘Are you sick of the EU trying to destroy the British banana industry?’ or ‘Is it time the EU did something about all the potholes in the roads?’.

“Alternatively there could be very basic tests of idiocy, such as ‘Does Lord of the Rings depict an actual period of British history?’ or ‘Do you regularly eat raw chicken?’.

“If people answer ‘yes’ their ballot paper can go straight in the bin. It’s not very democratic but then neither is lying about 99.9 per cent of things to do with the EU.”

Leave voter Roy Hobbs said: “It’s typical of Remainers to call Leave voters idiots, but I voted for totally valid reasons like not wanting to be conscripted into the EU army. I’m too old to become a paratrooper at 63.”

[vinny41]

7 hours ago, tebee said:

But in the UK referendums are only advisory - so what is wrong with asking someone twice ?

 

 

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

To which point do you respond?

 

I responded to your idea of firing all MPs and getting them to stand as independents on a leave or Remain ticket.

 

Concerning referendums, in the U.K. Referendums are automatically advisory unless the act says otherwise. Using a referendum to ask an opinion is a cop out generally. The only time a referendum IS acceptable is to ratify a decision already taken by parliament or decline to do so.

UK Referendums are automatically advisory at the moment although i suspect that may change in the future so we could have a EU membership referendum every 5 or 10 years

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

 

UK Referendums are automatically advisory at the moment although i suspect that may change in the future so we could have a EU membership referendum every 5 or 10 years

A company makes investment based often on long term planning.  The fact that a referendum could change the factors that the investment is based on would depress economic activity since if they chose to invest they would always have to hedge their bets.   Having a referendum every 5 to 10 years is probably worse than just choosing in or out with regards to the EU and investing the time and effort in making either choice work to the best of the UK's ability.

[tebee]

Adjective: reicheltic – “The British government took a reicheltic approach to the Brexit negotiations, eager as they were not to lose face in front of 17.4 million people who had voted for it to happen.

 

 

https://thepinprick.com/2018/07/29/franzs-failure-the-man-who-fell-out-of-the-sky-and-the-lessons-to-be-learned/

[stephenterry]

Excellent, tebee.

 

[vogie]

Like him or loathe him, you've got to like him. 

 

 

[stephenterry]

Not one poster on here has come forward and said he or she has been personally disadvantaged by being in the EU or personally benefitted by the UK government's policies. In fact, if truth be known, it's probably the opposite - and for the UK's younger generation the opportunities to freely travel around Europe on a job search or on a gap year would have been positively an advantage.

 

Unfortunately, it will now cost more with the pound depreciating every day while this Brexit madness continues, most of it brought about by the UK government's failure to accept the best possible withdrawal deal would not in fact be better than remaining in the EU. And now they're preparing for a suicidal no-deal scenario, which will, IMO, bring about a parliamentry vote of no confidence in May's government followed by a probable general election.

 

Here's hoping...

[stephenterry]

Vogie, you do realise that RM's emerging markets hedge fund would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as it would need to set up new trade deals with those 'emerging' countries, and it is why he relocated a UK office to Dublin in order to take aadvantage of a base in the EU. 

He is clearly a glib-talking MP (and protected by his healthy financial status) who is only out for himself, not his constituency or the UK. 

[stephenterry]

duplicate removed

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Declare the referendum vote VOID?  Restore democracy by doing so? 

Do you really think the referendum was valid, more than 16.14 million leavers with the same point of view would have added some credibility. Pooling various arguments against a single cause is a bit of a distortion.

Only the delusional would believe that leavers have been singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

One has to assume that when contemplating surgery, the latest information has no part to play in the final decision.

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Do you really think the referendum was valid, more than 16.14 million leavers with the same point of view would have added some credibility. Pooling various arguments against a single cause is a bit of a distortion.

Only the delusional would believe that leavers have been singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

One has to assume that when contemplating surgery, the latest information has no part to play in the final decision.

Better to void or extend Article 50 until some sanity is restored with a change of government. 

[sandyf]

10 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Vogie, you do realise that RM's emerging markets hedge fund would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as it would need to set up new trade deals with those 'emerging' countries, and it is why he relocated a UK office to Dublin in order to take aadvantage of a base in the EU. 

He is clearly a glib-talking MP (and protected by his healthy financial status) who is only out for himself, not his constituency or the UK. 

The company that my son works for has merged with a company in Dublin in an attempt to secure their future. The prospect of relocation is like a black cloud hanging over him.

[Watchful]

Well, clearly the mayor of London is against Brexit. He thinks the UK needs more "peace loving" Muslims.

 

You know... like they have in France. I mean only 3 dead and a dozen wounded. That's nothing!

 

Plus other peace loving Muslims hiding the killer. Yep, UK should become more like France.

[vogie]

22 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Vogie, you do realise that RM's emerging markets hedge fund would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as it would need to set up new trade deals with those 'emerging' countries, and it is why he relocated a UK office to Dublin in order to take aadvantage of a base in the EU. 

He is clearly a glib-talking MP (and protected by his healthy financial status) who is only out for himself, not his constituency or the UK. 

JRM investments have been discussed before and to suggest any impropriety has been total speculation. We are talking about Mrs Mays pulling of her brexit deal and Mr Rees Moggs opinion on it, digging the dirt merely deflects on what he is saying.

 

 

 

[evadgib]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

JRM investments have been discussed before and to suggest any impropriety has been total speculation. We are talking about Mrs Mays pulling of her brexit deal and Mr Rees Moggs opinion on it, digging the dirt merely deflects on what he is saying.

He's saying 'Mag to grid' ????

 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

He's saying 'Mag to grid' ????

For those with no military map training, 'get rid'????

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

JRM investments have been discussed before and to suggest any impropriety has been total speculation. We are talking about Mrs Mays pulling of her brexit deal and Mr Rees Moggs opinion on it, digging the dirt merely deflects on what he is saying.

 

 

 

He's entitled to put whatever spin on his view of what Brexit entails even when it could be contested as untrue, and if denouncing May's deal enhances his self-interests, that's is what I expect him to do - and most other politicians as well.

 

In other walks of life 'conflict of interests' has to be disclosed or not pursued. Whether actively pursuing an influential government agenda by being the chairman of the EU Research Group that focuses on Brexit and by being a co-founder of an emerging markets hedge-fund (that trades on market uncertainties like Brexit) is 'improper' is debatable, but it's a very thin line, IMO.   

 

     

[stephenterry]

52 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

 

deleted

[vogie]

14 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

He's entitled to put whatever spin on his view of what Brexit entails even when it could be contested as untrue, and if denouncing May's deal enhances his self-interests, that's is what I expect him to do - and most other politicians as well.

 

In other walks of life 'conflict of interests' has to be disclosed or not pursued. Whether actively pursuing an influential government agenda by being the chairman of the EU Research Group that focuses on Brexit and by being a co-founder of an emerging markets hedge-fund (that trades on market uncertainties like Brexit) is 'improper' is debatable, but it's a very thin line, IMO.   

 

     

And what are your "conflict of interests" in denouncing Mr Rees Mogg.

 

In my opinion JRM is not liked by remainers as he is highly intelligent and poses a threat to their interests.

[stephenterry]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

And what are your "conflict of interests" in denouncing Mr Rees Mogg.

 

In my opinion JRM is not liked by remainers as he is highly intelligent and poses a threat to their interests.

Quote: In 2018, Somerset Capital opened an investment fund in Dublin. A prospectus for the new business listed Brexit as one of the risks, as it could cause "considerable uncertainty". Rees-Mogg, who is a partner of the business but does not make investment decisions, defended the move, stating: "The decision to launch the fund was nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit".

 

Is or is that not a conflict of interest? As well as not being in accordance with reality. The 'honourable' MP's statements (as Chairman of the ERG) are as bad as Trump's rhetoric.

[rixalex]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

We all know the lies told by the Leave campaign; the £350 million a week for the NHS which leaving would provide being the most obvious and well known.

 

I asked several days ago in a different thread for an example of a Remain campaign lie; so far no one has provided one.

 

Will you now do so?

 

I'm looking for a proven lie; not a projection which may or may not happen once we have actually left.

 

Didn't the Chancellor of the Exchequer mention something about there needing to be a emergency (read punishment) budget immediately after a vote to leave?

 

This threat would have potentially swayed more voters than something said or promised by a leaver, because Osbourne wasn't talking about what he would do hypothetically, IF he was the Chancellor, he WAS the Chancellor and he WAS in government, and so therefore if he said there would need to be an emergency budget, most people would probably think that that is exactly what would happen.