Hundreds of thousands march in London to demand new Brexit referendum

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, malagateddy said:

Is it a henious crime to be xenophobe??

 

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Absolutely. It's the Tower for you, my lad. No, seriously, it's very old thinking and no longer has a place in modern society. The world has moved on since Henry V111.

[malagateddy]

Monnets aim was exactly the same as the current brussels t@ssers want
A united states of europe..ran by beurocrats.
Try reading Macron's very recent document re his aims!!

Monnet died a long long time ago. He, De Gaulle and his ilk no longer play a part in the EU of today. You're living in the past.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Spidey]

19 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

But not the EU do you get it. Brexit is about the EU.

Yes I get it, they're not in the EU , they're members of other trading blocks. Brexit is about the EU, so why make a pathetic attempt at deflection by bringing them into the conversation? Do you get it? Who do you think you are? Bernard bloody Manning? 

[evadgib]

19 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Maybe others, but not me.  I am quite clear in my own mind why I support leaving the EU and why I think that, in the long run, it is right for the UK, including Scotland and NI, although if NI decides to be part of a United Ireland, that would certainly get my vote.  same for an In dependant Scotland, although I don't see that happening any time soon.

So back to my reasons.  The EU is a forerunner of a Federalised Europe, where independent sovereign Nations are subsumed into the greater European Nation.  I don't want this for the UK, why, because we have little in common with most of the EU members, either culturally, by language, by the Rule and application of law,  by history, or financially.  Europe is not the United States or Australia, where federalisation works due to common shared values. and a sharing of all of the above list. 

Next, the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and unaccountable.  The Commission is it's Civil Service, but far more powerful that the UK's and not accountable to the people.  The Presidents of both the Commission and the EU itself are appointed and not elected (take note all those who support the EU but criticise the Thais) . Next . I support the very concept of independent sovereign , democratic Nations .  I have no issue with close economic, trade and cultural ties with other Nations, hence I supported the old EEC, but Independence of laws, defence, foreign policy and  financially accountability are, in my view, key to Nationhood. Notice, I have no issues with immigration, which I support, provided those coming to the UK are there to positively contribute and integrate. 

 

Sorry for the long reply, buy many here and elsewhere, think Brexit supporters are just closet racists that don't really know their own mind.  I am not and I do know exactly why I support leaving the EU.  I have never considered myself European.  I am British and proud of it. I may have lived geographically in a greater Europe, but I have no connection with it, or its peoples. 

#me too 

[Laughing Gravy]

26 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Yes I get it, they're not in the EU , they're members of other trading blocks. Brexit is about the EU, so why make a pathetic attempt at deflection by bringing them into the conversation? Do you get it? Who do you think you are? Bernard bloody Manning? 

Much younger and far better looking. Oh and alive.

 

Obviously the grey matter for you isn't as it use to be. I understand. I would suggest that you go back and read the posts to fully comprehend why 'they' were brought into the conversation. Deflection, how amusing. You are the number 1 at that point, so give yourself a pat on the back.

 

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Much younger and far better looking. Oh and alive.

 

Obviously the grey matter for you isn't as it use to be. I understand. I would suggest that you go back and read the posts to fully comprehend why 'they' were brought into the conversation. Deflection, how amusing. You are the number 1 at that point, so give yourself a pat on the back.

 

Genuinely glad that you found me amusing. I do try.  Don't worry though, I'm no competition for you, every one of your posts makes me split my sides. Comedy gold, you are, proper comedy gold. Bernard will be looking down and smiling fondly at your posts.

[Spidey]

45 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

A pathetic comment.  

No, "a pathetic comment" is a pathetic comment.

[Laughing Gravy]

10 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Genuinely glad that you found me amusing. I do try.  Don't worry though, I'm no competition for you, every one of your posts makes me split my sides. Comedy gold, you are, proper comedy gold. Bernard will be looking down and smiling fondly at your posts.

Maybe I should take a note from your book and watch people in Pattaya and then generalise the 1.38 billion people. Amazing. So logging of from you now Steptoe, No need to reply, save your energy for watching tourists in Pattaya and tell TV members here, just how cultures are from your very wide experienced point of view.

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Maybe I should take a note from your book and watch people in Pattaya and then generalise the 1.38 billion people. Amazing. So logging of from you now Steptoe, No need to reply, save your energy for watching tourists in Pattaya and tell TV members here, just how cultures are from your very wide experienced point of view.

Roger, wilco. Happy to be of service to a great comedian.

 

BTW. You just sound like my son, Harold.

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

So there you have it folks Aaron Banks - whose money made all this happen says Remain is the better option. Beginning to be a total rout....

 

Arron Banks@Arron_banks

 

 

It’s not Brexit , it is a binding treaty and it is designed to see us fail completely as a country. Remain is a better option than this toxic surrender document. You should have been an MP , given that appalling analysis...

Iain Dale

 

✔@IainDale

 

The big question for ERGers tonight is this. May’s deal or an even softer Brexit? The choice is yours. You may not like it. I don’t like it. But that is the reality. Deal with it and get it over the line.

 

789

6:15 AM - Mar 26, 2019

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

The fact is, the UK is leaving the EU for any number of different reasons, least of all qualified accounts, and therefore the government should shoulder the responsibility. The only one to blame is the UK government if Brexit doesn't meet peoples expectations, not the EU. 

 

I find it continuously amusing that most Brexiteers are always blaming someone else  - in this case, the EU - if things are not working out to their liking.

 

Can't speak for others of course, but I blame the brit. govt. even more than the eu for this fiasco.

[melvinmelvin]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Can't speak for others of course, but I blame the brit. govt. even more than the eu for this fiasco.

you should blame the Commons, the real culprit

 

[Laughing Gravy]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Can't speak for others of course, but I blame the brit. govt. even more than the eu for this fiasco.

I agree with you on more than the EU. But the EU are not blameless in this, IMHO. Fiasco is the word.

 

I suppose some still think we will all be holding hands and singing Khum bai ah. This is only going to cause more division.

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, Pilotman said:

Maybe others, but not me.  I am quite clear in my own mind why I support leaving the EU and why I think that, in the long run, it is right for the UK, including Scotland and NI, although if NI decides to be part of a United Ireland, that would certainly get my vote.  same for an In dependant Scotland, although I don't see that happening any time soon.

So back to my reasons.  The EU is a forerunner of a Federalised Europe, where independent sovereign Nations are subsumed into the greater European Nation.  I don't want this for the UK, why, because we have little in common with most of the EU members, either culturally, by language, by the Rule and application of law,  by history, or financially.  Europe is not the United States or Australia, where federalisation works due to common shared values. and a sharing of all of the above list. 

Next, the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and unaccountable.  The Commission is it's Civil Service, but far more powerful that the UK's and not accountable to the people.  The Presidents of both the Commission and the EU itself are appointed and not elected (take note all those who support the EU but criticise the Thais) . Next . I support the very concept of independent sovereign , democratic Nations .  I have no issue with close economic, trade and cultural ties with other Nations, hence I supported the old EEC, but Independence of laws, defence, foreign policy and  financially accountability are, in my view, key to Nationhood. Notice, I have no issues with immigration, which I support, provided those coming to the UK are there to positively contribute and integrate. 

 

Sorry for the long reply, buy many here and elsewhere, think Brexit supporters are just closet racists that don't really know their own mind.  I am not and I do know exactly why I support leaving the EU.  I have never considered myself European.  I am British and proud of it. I may have lived geographically in a greater Europe, but I have no connection with it, or its peoples. 

For you to take a simplistic and ideologist view that the EU is not good for Britain, and that it is better for us to cut all ties - I'll get onto to that in a mo - is not how the world works, nowadays. 

 

Leaving the EU, the single market, the customs union, and the ECJ does not economically benefit the UK, IMO, and neither industry or populous.  

 

1. By virtue of being in the EU, we can trade with the whole bloc and 41 other countries outside the EU - e.g. Japan and S Korea. Once left, we have to set up new trade agreements outside the EU that could take years to implement. Rees-Mogg's emerging markets fund would benefit from the UK amassing such treaties with smaller countries - one reason he supports a hard Brexit. 

 

2. The single market is by far the largest on Britain's doorstep. Just look at supermarket shelves. Why the government want to replace this in-situ trade for far-flung off 'opportunities' elsewhere doesn't make any sense.

 

3. Not being in the CU would turn Kent into a massive lorry-park, disrupt vital services, such as transport, schools, and hospital traffic. That doesn't make sense, either.

 

4. Cutting off the ECJ is debatable, but it does open the door for the UK to set-up draconian laws, e.g on preventing free movement, without any counter-check to oppose it. UK students on gap years would have to obtain visas from the various EU countries, take out increased travel insurance, and maybe needing permission to stay.

 

5. Businesses and Brits are moving in to Europe before Brexit - that means loss of jobs, a disaster for smaller businesses, and BTW, a new car from Europe would attract a hight tariff.  As Brexit day approaches people will begin to stockpile essential goods and medicines. 

 

I could go on about the pound devaluing further and the cost of living rising as a result of more costly imports, but I'll rest my case that the downsides of Brexit could be much more serious than any blue-sky benefits. That is something you haven't addressed, but merely state your own selfish preferences.

 

i've only found one person who could tell me he would personally benefit from Brexit by virtue of earning an income not paid in sterling, and no-one who has been adversely affected by the EU or ECJ.

 

I am hoping that if Brexit occurs, and after the actuality of what is going to happen kicks in, that the UK populous would realise they've been set-up and scammed...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

38 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

you should blame the Commons, the real culprit

 

May's deal is worse than remaining in the EU. It is right for parliament to reject it. At least a semblance of sanity prevails now they're taking over to provide indicative ways forward.

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

May's deal is worse than remaining in the EU. It is right for parliament to reject it. At least a semblance of sanity prevails now they're taking over to provide indicative ways forward.

I'd like to agree, but it has to be remembered the vast majority of MPs are remainers.....

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'd like to agree, but it has to be remembered the vast majority of MPs are remainers.....

So tell me why that should be? Is it because they believe that the Brexit plan falls short of what could be actually good for Britain?

 

Bottom line for me is i can accept leaving the EU but stay in the single market, CU, and ECJ, which wouldn't devastate Britain's economy or businesses. There is a 'EU control' cost to this, but hell, the UK voted to leave, so must bear the consequences.

 

No such thing as a free lunch.

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

So tell me why that should be? Is it because they believe that the Brexit plan falls short of what could be actually good for Britain?

 

Bottom line for me is i can accept leaving the EU but stay in the single market, CU, and ECJ, which wouldn't devastate Britain's economy or businesses. There is a 'EU control' cost to this, but hell, the UK voted to leave, so must bear the consequences.

 

No such thing as a free lunch.

The reasons why MPs are keen on remaining have been posted time and time again - and it has nothing to do with what is 'good for the electorate' - it's all about what is good for them personally......

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

For you to take a simplistic and ideologist view that the EU is not good for Britain, and that it is better for us to cut all ties - I'll get onto to that in a mo - is not how the world works, nowadays. 

 

Leaving the EU, the single market, the customs union, and the ECJ does not economically benefit the UK, IMO, and neither industry or populous.  

 

1. By virtue of being in the EU, we can trade with the whole bloc and 41 other countries outside the EU - e.g. Japan and S Korea. Once left, we have to set up new trade agreements outside the EU that could take years to implement. Rees-Mogg's emerging markets fund would benefit from the UK amassing such treaties with smaller countries - one reason he supports a hard Brexit. 

 

2. The single market is by far the largest on Britain's doorstep. Just look at supermarket shelves. Why the government want to replace this in-situ trade for far-flung off 'opportunities' elsewhere doesn't make any sense.

 

3. Not being in the CU would turn Kent into a massive lorry-park, disrupt vital services, such as transport, schools, and hospital traffic. That doesn't make sense, either.

 

4. Cutting off the ECJ is debatable, but it does open the door for the UK to set-up draconian laws, e.g on preventing free movement, without any counter-check to oppose it. UK students on gap years would have to obtain visas from the various EU countries, take out increased travel insurance, and maybe needing permission to stay.

 

5. Businesses and Brits are moving in to Europe before Brexit - that means loss of jobs, a disaster for smaller businesses, and BTW, a new car from Europe would attract a hight tariff.  As Brexit day approaches people will begin to stockpile essential goods and medicines. 

 

I could go on about the pound devaluing further and the cost of living rising as a result of more costly imports, but I'll rest my case that the downsides of Brexit could be much more serious than any blue-sky benefits. That is something you haven't addressed, but merely state your own selfish preferences.

 

i've only found one person who could tell me he would personally benefit from Brexit by virtue of earning an income not paid in sterling, and no-one who has been adversely affected by the EU or ECJ.

 

I am hoping that if Brexit occurs, and after the actuality of what is going to happen kicks in, that the UK populous would realise they've been set-up and scammed...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're wrong. I don't think it will take years to implement trade deals with countries currently trading with EU. I think it's basically a formality to clone the existing deals (as indicated by Liam Fox, Secretary State for International Trade). Here's an interesting read: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/international-trade-committee/the-work-of-the-department-for-international-trade/oral/72941.html  

[Forethat]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

May's deal is worse than remaining in the EU. It is right for parliament to reject it. At least a semblance of sanity prevails now they're taking over to provide indicative ways forward.

Correct. In essence, May's deal is nothing but a charade that would silence the EU-sceptics by making them believe we've left the EU. But the whole point is that the deal is nothing but a firm plan to KEEP UK in the EU. 

[damascase]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

I think you're wrong. I don't think it will take years to implement trade deals with countries currently trading with EU. I think it's basically a formality to clone the existing deals (as indicated by Liam Fox, Secretary State for International Trade). Here's an interesting read: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/international-trade-committee/the-work-of-the-department-for-international-trade/oral/72941.html  

Cloning might be seen by you as a formality, but if that really was the case, many more - and much more important - ‘deals’ would have been closed than the current ones with the likes of FarOer, Papua New Guinea and the Fiji Islands. And yes, I did read the paper you linked to. Interesting!

What’s left of ‘taking back control’, with cloned/copied EU agreements? They weren’t that bad at all, in hindsight?

[7by7]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

The reasons why MPs are keen on remaining have been posted time and time again - and it has nothing to do with what is 'good for the electorate' - it's all about what is good for them personally......

As you believe we can't trust the MPs to make what you think is the right decision on our future relationship with the EU, including whether or not to cancel the whole thing, you must agree that the only alternative is to let the people make that decision!

 

If not MPs because you don't trust them, if not the people for whatever reason; then who?

[KarlS]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

As you believe we can't trust the MPs to make what you think is the right decision on our future relationship with the EU, including whether or not to cancel the whole thing, you must agree that the only alternative is to let the people make that decision!

 

If not MPs because you don't trust them, if not the people for whatever reason; then who?

The people have already voted and the majority of MPs were elected on manifestos that promised the people's decision would be implemented. Those MP's who have reneged on their "promise" should be cast out of parliament. 

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, KarlS said:

The people have already voted and the majority of MPs were elected on manifestos that promised the people's decision would be implemented. Those MP's who have reneged on their "promise" should be cast out of parliament. 

Not an answer.

 

You don't trust MPs to vote the way you want them to; you wont let the people have the final decision; so who should make that decision?

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

I think you're wrong. I don't think it will take years to implement trade deals with countries currently trading with EU. I think it's basically a formality to clone the existing deals (as indicated by Liam Fox, Secretary State for International Trade). Here's an interesting read: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/international-trade-committee/the-work-of-the-department-for-international-trade/oral/72941.html  

I admire your optimism, but Liam Fox is a key minister of a current Tory government which hasn't excelled itself in getting anything implemented as far as Brexit is concerned. While roll-over deals are likely with some countries, currently both Japan and S Korea are stalling and no agreement has been reached as to where they would stand post Brexit. 

 

As I posted above, new major deals could take years before implementation - and it just ain't going to happen overnight. Source: from the USA stats as to how long it takes to fast track new deals - at least one year just to agree a deal, and at least another year to implement the agreement. 

 

Beats me why Britain want to junk the current deals - it just doesn't make sense to start from scratch.

 

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not an answer.

 

You don't trust MPs to vote the way you want them to; you wont let the people have the final decision; so who should make that decision?

The people should make the decision, ask them in a referendum , just one referendum and the Politicians should act/vote the way the people instruct them to .

   Lets have a referendum asking the people and just one referendum  

[KarlS]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not an answer.

 

You don't trust MPs to vote the way you want them to; you wont let the people have the final decision; so who should make that decision?

I do not have an answer but what I do know is that MPs have contrived to make Brexit the most divisive issue ever faced by the UK in modern times. 

Who do you think should make the decision? There is no modern-day precedent for the 'people' enacting law. 

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The people should make the decision, ask them in a referendum , just one referendum and the Politicians should act/vote the way the people instruct them to .

   Lets have a referendum asking the people and just one referendum  

The real issue would have been not to have had an advisory referendum in the first place. Cameron has a lot to answer for. He headed a government that was elected to govern the country and resolve any and all issues arising from Britain's relationship with the EU.

 

By asking the people - who mostly had no idea of any consequences - he knowingly abrogated government's responsibility, and I believe any future referendum would do the same, and for the same reasons. 

 

In other words, it would be a cop out.

 

The best way forward is for parliament to take back control over Brexit this week, and by resolving a way forward using indicative votes, and telling May to get off the pot and action it, or dissolve the government and hold a General Election. 

 

About time, too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, damascase said:

Cloning might be seen by you as a formality, but if that really was the case, many more - and much more important - ‘deals’ would have been closed than the current ones with the likes of FarOer, Papua New Guinea and the Fiji Islands. And yes, I did read the paper you linked to. Interesting!

What’s left of ‘taking back control’, with cloned/copied EU agreements? They weren’t that bad at all, in hindsight?

The reason deals cannot be made is that UK are bound by law to EUs exclusive right to strike trade deals. Thus, UK cannot conclude binding agreements until we have left the EU.

[Forethat]

33 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I admire your optimism, but Liam Fox is a key minister of a current Tory government which hasn't excelled itself in getting anything implemented as far as Brexit is concerned. While roll-over deals are likely with some countries, currently both Japan and S Korea are stalling and no agreement has been reached as to where they would stand post Brexit. 

 

As I posted above, new major deals could take years before implementation - and it just ain't going to happen overnight. Source: from the USA stats as to how long it takes to fast track new deals - at least one year just to agree a deal, and at least another year to implement the agreement. 

 

Beats me why Britain want to junk the current deals - it just doesn't make sense to start from scratch.

 

I have already addressed the legal issue related to striking trade deals pre-Brexit. It isn't that we can't strike deals in a hasty manner to secure UK trade, it is our obligations to EU law that prevents us to do it in the first place.