Hundreds of thousands march in London to demand new Brexit referendum

[7by7]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:11 AM, 7by7 said:

On 3/29/2019 at 8:41 AM, nontabury said:

On 3/29/2019 at 7:50 AM, 7by7 said:

Decided to leave; but how and what would our relationship be with the EU afterwards?

 

Even Rees-Mogg has now admitted that it was a huge mistake that nobody even thought about the answers to those questions at the time! 

Because you say something, does not automatically mean it’s true,perhaps you can prove that Rees-Mogg actually admitted it was a huge mistake.

 I heard him say on the radio the other day that campaigning for Brexit without a clear plan of how to achieve it was a huge mistake. 

 

I'm about to leave for work, but will source that quote later.

 Many apologies; I'd forgotten this.

 

Can't find a recording of the actual radio broadcast, but he has said as much elsewhere.

 

Quote

'Greatest hint yet' Rees-Mogg will soon back PM's deal

Jacob Rees-Mogg gives 'greatest hint yet' he will soon back PM's deal

Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

 

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event."

(Source)

 

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[Chelseafan]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

But the SNP lost that by a larger margin, just, with a larger turnout.

 

Even so, I think you'll find it's not just the SNP who are agitating for another independence referendum.

 

The result was 55% v 45% not THAT much different.

 

And this was supposedly a "one-in-a-lifetime" vote....just like BExit.

 

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

I've answered your question; so instead of merely clicking on yet another laughing smiley, how about you answering mine?

 

Edit:

I'd also, of course, more than welcome the answers of each and every other poster opposed to May's deal. Proper answers, not mere repeats of slogans, please.

 

Maybe proper, well thought out arguments will convince me where blindly repeating mindless slogans hasn't!

 

I like and Want an agreement with every one of those points. Is that plain enough English for you.

 Now you answer my point, When is it guaranteed to happen, under May’s surrender document.

 

 Proper thought out answers, and not blinkered excuses,would be much appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Many apologies; I'd forgotten this.

 

Can't find a recording of the actual radio broadcast, but he has said as much elsewhere.

Greatest hint yet' Rees-Mogg will soon back PM's deal

Jacob Rees-Mogg gives 'greatest hint yet' he will soon back PM's deal

Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

 

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event."

 

 

 

Even Rees-Mogg has now admitted that it was a huge mistake that nobody even thought about the answers to those questions at the time!

 

 

 So where does this show that your original post was correct? :-

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by nontabury

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, sanemax said:

The "proven liar" isnt a member of UKIP

True but he is still a cynical, money grubbing pedlar of disinformation and all round unpleasant creature. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Grouse

[AlexRich]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

Reading comprehension is clearly not one of your skills.

If I'm correct - and I am - what I said was that UK would not be able to leave legally in a constitutional manner without the statutory instruments required to amend the law. 

So the question you should ask yourself is:

1. Did they get the instruments in place?

2. If they didn't, did we remain legally and in a constitutional manner

 

I'll try to explain again: Just because speeding is illegal doesn't mean it never happens. I appreciate that this is difficult for you to understand, but trust me on this.

 

 

"... because we leave on the March 29th whether leavers like it or not"

 

The statutory instrument was a formality, there was never any question that it would go through ... so your post was completely nonsensical. We were never leaving on March 29th, something that you failed to grasp.

 

I invited you to come back to us all and explain why you were wrong ... it seems that I was right.

 

 

 

 

[Forethat]

8 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

"... because we leave on the March 29th whether leavers like it or not"

 

The statutory instrument was a formality, there was never any question that it would go through ... so your post was completely nonsensical. We were never leaving on March 29th, something that you failed to grasp.

 

I invited you to come back to us all and explain why you were wrong ... it seems that I was right.

 

 

 

 

 

It'd be a lot easier if you just answered the question. I'll put them to you again:

1. Did they get the instruments in place?

2. If they didn't, did we remain legally and in a constitutional manner?

 

I take it your lack of ability to provide an answer means you're not interested in (or lack the ability to acknowledge) the legal and constitutional situation I highlighted. I am.

[Forethat]

And for those of you who can read, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 was amended to comply with UK law to prevent the UK from making a constitutional hiccup. Interestingly, this amazing fact became public 12 hours AFTER I informed this forum. Strange that.,..

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/eu-exit-day-is-changed-in-uk-law/

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Forethat

[RickBradford]

7 hours ago, wilcopops said:

I think 2 years is enough,,,,,,Brexiteers clear cannot agree on or organize a Brexit, so isn't it about time to just cease and let the rest of us get on with it?

Indeed.

 

That's what the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit have been requesting for the past 2 years. Just cease, let the clock run down, leave the EU on WTO terms and just "get on with it."

 

Unfortunately, with around 80% of MPs being Remainers, that is proving an elusive goal.

[AlexRich]

24 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It'd be a lot easier if you just answered the question. I'll put them to you again:

1. Did they get the instruments in place?

2. If they didn't, did we remain legally and in a constitutional manner?

 

I take it your lack of ability to provide an answer means you're not interested in (or lack the ability to acknowledge) the legal and constitutional situation I highlighted. I am.

 

The statutory instruments were a mere formality, you attempted to suggest that there was still hope for a 29th March exit ... a pointless endeavour. 

 

A "no deal" exit will not happen ... not on the 29th March, not on 12th April ... it's either an agreed Brexit (perhaps May's) or a long extension culminating in a General Election and/or second referendum.

 

 

 

 

 

[AlexRich]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Indeed.

 

That's what the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit have been requesting for the past 2 years. Just cease, let the clock run down, leave the EU on WTO terms and just "get on with it."

 

Unfortunately, with around 80% of MPs being Remainers, that is proving an elusive goal.

 

If that's what 17.4 million wanted, who during the leave campaign promised them that result? The fact is that no leave politician campaigned for that ... not one. All of them promised leaving with a deal and a transition ... and if Johnson and Gove now disagree on what constitutes leave, how can you make such a statement about 17.4 million people (some of whom are now dead)?

 

That is the reason why the country is in this mess, an inability to define what constitutes leave. Norway is not in the EU, neither is Turkey ... so leave could mean that?

 

 

 

 

[Forethat]

Just now, AlexRich said:

 

The statutory instruments were a mere formality, you attempted to suggest that there was still hope for a 29th March exit ... a pointless endeavour. 

 

A "no deal" exit will not happen ... not on the 29th March, not on 12th April ... it's either an agreed Brexit (perhaps May's) or a long extension culminating in a General Election and/or second referendum.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I didn't suggest that at all. What I stated was that a delay - or exit - without the appropriate amendment to the law would be illegal and that the consequences would be a constitutional issue. It's my job.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, AlexRich said:

 

 if Johnson and Gove now disagree on what constitutes leave, how can you make such a statement about 17.4 million people (some of whom are now dead)?

That's a breathtakingly silly comment. 

 

Are you suggesting that we should ignore their votes now that they're dead?

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

like and Want an agreement with every one of those points. Is that plain enough English for you.

Great; so May's deal is the deal for you.

 

In which case how can you still refer to it as a surrender document and also say it gives you everything you want?

 

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Now you answer my point, When is it guaranteed to happen, under May’s surrender document.

Already answered.

 

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 

 To each and every one of those points you make.

 Can you just add:- WHEN

 

For the benefit of two others who like you obviously can't be bothered to read even the summaries of May's deal provided by every national media source in the UK I have already answered that question.

 

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The deal provides for a transition period of 21 months. This could be extended up to a maximum of two years, but only if both sides agree.

 

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

 

Even Rees-Mogg has now admitted that it was a huge mistake that nobody even thought about the answers to those questions at the time!

 

 

 So where does this show that your original post was correct? :-

 So you tell us; what does he mean by "Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." if it's not an admission that he hadn't thought about the process of how to achieve Brexit at the time of the referendum?

[AlexRich]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That's a breathtakingly silly comment. 

 

Are you suggesting that we should ignore their votes now that they're dead?

 

Yes. They are irrelevant. 

 

 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Yes. They are irrelevant. 

What an extraordinary statement.

 

You sure have a lot to learn about democracy, among many other things.

[AlexRich]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

What an extraordinary statement.

 

You sure have a lot to learn about democracy, among many other things.

 

The dead don't count. We govern for the living. And I feel no obligation to impose economic damage on the country to follow the wishes of someone who is no longer here. Almost three years have passed ... and the so-called "will of the people" now needs to be tested in the light of what is now known. And "the people" will include those that are now eligible to vote and those that didn't bother voting but wish they had. 

 

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

The result was 55% v 45% not THAT much different.

True; but the turnout was much larger. 84.6% as opposed to 72.2%.

 

2 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

And this was supposedly a "one-in-a-lifetime" vote....just like BExit.

Personally, I believe that as Scotland voted 62.0% to 38.0% in favour of remain that the Scots should be given another vote; remain in the UK outside the EU, or leave the UK and apply to join the EU as an independent nation.

 

The Northern Irish too, as they voted to remain 55.8 to 44.2%. Unite with the RoI and so stay in the EU, or remain in the UK and so leave the EU. But I suspect that in any such referendum there people would vote along sectarian lines regardless of their feelings about EU membership.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, AlexRich said:

And "the people" will include those that are now eligible to vote and those that didn't bother voting but wish they had. 

I repeat: you have a great deal - almost everything, in fact - to learn about democracy.

 

It is the height of silliness to suggest that people who voted, but have since passed away, are irrelevant, but that people who "didn't bother voting but wish they had" are somehow relevant.

 

If you can't grasp that, then there's no hope at all.

[AlexRich]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

I repeat: you have a great deal - almost everything, in fact - to learn about democracy.

 

It is the height of silliness to suggest that people who voted, but have since passed away, are irrelevant, but that people who "didn't bother voting but wish they had" are somehow relevant.

 

If you can't grasp that, then there's no hope at all.

 

You seem unable to grasp that democracy did not stop on June 2016, it is an ongoing process, of people comparing promises to what is being delivered, and having their voice heard in subsequent votes if they don't believe those promises are being kept. That is where we are now.  If parliament cannot fix it, the only democratic act left is to return the question to the people. 

 

 

 

 

 

[sanemax]

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

True; but the turnout was much larger. 84.6% as opposed to 72.2%.

 

Personally, I believe that as Scotland voted 62.0% to 38.0% in favour of remain that the Scots should be given another vote; remain in the UK outside the EU, or leave the UK and apply to join the EU as an independent nation.

 

The Northern Irish too, as they voted to remain 55.8 to 44.2%. Unite with the RoI and so stay in the EU, or remain in the UK and so leave the EU. But I suspect that in any such referendum there people would vote along sectarian lines regardless of their feelings about EU membership.

How about Scotland , Ireland , Norther Ireland all forming their own "Country" and take Wales along as well, if they want to go ?

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, AlexRich said:

You seem unable to grasp that democracy did not stop on June 2016, it is an ongoing process,

You seem unable to grasp the first thing about democracy.

 

Then-PM Cameron said : "This is a decision that lasts for life. We make this decision and it is probably going to be the only time in our generation when we make this decision."

 

I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain this to you, but what Cameron meant was this: In a democracy, you take a decision, a snapshot of public opinion, as it were. You then implement that decision. That is the key point.

 

When - and only when - that decision has been fully implemented, do you have the right to reconsider. 

 

The British people voted to leave the EU; that decision needs to be fully implemented, not to be rerun because a whole bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to vote in 2016 are now complaining because they lost.

[7by7]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

<snip>

When - and only when - that decision has been fully implemented, do you have the right to reconsider. 

So if you and a group of friends decided on a drunken whim one night to jump of a high cliff in the morning you would still go ahead when you'd sobered up and wait until you'd all smashed into the ground below before reconsidering?

 

The time to consider reversing  a decision is before it becomes irrevocable.

 

Once we are out of the EU, we are out. Even if they were to welcome us back, we would not have the same advantages we currently enjoy. We would lose the rebate, we would have to join Schengen, we would have to commit to joining the Euro.

 

Parliament can't decide, let the people do so now that we have all the facts rather than the spin and downright lies of Vote.Leave who convinced 52% of the population that we could lose all the things we didn't like about EU membership while retaining those we did!

 

If the now much better informed decision of the public is still to leave; then so be it.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

So if you and a group of friends decided on a drunken whim one night to jump of a high cliff in the morning you would still go ahead when you'd sobered up and wait until you'd all smashed into the ground below before reconsidering?

I'm sure there's a thread about drunken accidents somewhere on this forum, if you want to talk about that.

 

I'm talking about the democratic process; you take a decision, you implement it. Otherwise, democracy itself is meaningless.

[welovesundaysatspace]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

When - and only when - that decision has been fully implemented, do you have the right to reconsider. 

And why would anyone have to live by your definition of democracy? You have yours, I have mine, he has his. 

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And why would anyone have to live by your definition of democracy? You have yours, I have mine, he has his. 

In that case, the word 'democracy' has no meaning whatever.

 

The Western concept of democracy, that a popular vote will lead to implementation of the policies voted for, has a history goes back over 2000 years to the ancient Greeks.

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

In that case, the word 'democracy' has no meaning whatever.

 

The Western concept of democracy, that a popular vote will lead to implementation of the policies voted for, has a history goes back over 2000 years to the ancient Greeks.

Again, you are trying to force your definition of democracy onto others. There are different implementations of democracy, and nowhere does it say that a system has to follow your definition to qualify as a democracy. What certainly is not democratic is one person changing the rules of such democracy. 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Again, you are trying to force your definition of democracy onto others. There are different implementations of democracy, and nowhere does it say that a system has to follow your definition to qualify as a democracy. What certainly is not democratic is one person changing the rules of such democracy. 

No, it's not my definition. It's the definition that the West has inherited from thousands of years ago. You vote for something, it gets implemented.

 

If that doesn't happen, then democracy, the 'rule of the people' has no meaning whatever.

 

And that, it seems, is exactly what is happening with Brexit, the betrayal of democracy, where the will of the people is not being implemented.