6 hours ago, Loiner said:

As there was no mention of a deal, the default is No Deal.

Now, let us exit - No Deal.

Only… not even 1/2 of the House of Commons to back that. And for a "leave" without mentioning any consequences.. only a 51,88 %, with 48,11 for "remain", whatever consequences. Time to split the "leave" in the several options. 

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 

And what many remoaners are blind to, is the direction, in which those unelected Bureaucrats in Brussels intend to take the E.u ( if it survives).

In fact very little discussion on their future plans have been highlighted in the establishment owed media, I can only wonder why. One example is the remoaners continued denial that the E.u are intending to create an E.u army.

 

 

IF an European army will be formed, than signed by the British Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, after which it has to be ratified in the British Parliament ( and all other national parliaments). So, as usual from Brexiteers: complete nonsense.

And if.. I presume the British army will be extremely happy to join a 450 mln inhabitants force instead on relying on a 65 mln inhabitants islands

10 hours ago, puipuitom said:

As usual, Brexiteers do not have an idea about reality. To stupid to learn, to lazy to look it up. 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1021057/theresa-may-salary-prime-minister-how-much-britain-uk-conservative-party-mp

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3685908/Cameron-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

So you missed the bit about the ongoing expenses that PMs receive for life after leaving the job ....... it's out there somewhere. Before Blair their expenses were around 115,000/year.

Here's the earlier payments before the increase.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-09-02/44051/

 

They used to get a much bigger pension which was taxed, and in the public eye.

Now they get a huge expenses account, untaxed and a bit more hidden.

Think it was Blair that arranged that little scam.

Edited May 18, 20197 yr by BritManToo

9 hours ago, evadgib said:

Had we left the week after the result was in & kept both hands on the tap from day 1 & watched the BMW's etc stack up @ Rotterdam we'd have been ideally placed to start those negotiation and they would have been quick.

 

& have an 'Owzat!' 

Well that looks a bit like a plan.

 

Except plans are not made retrospectively.

 

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 

 True,but it’s still the desire of the British people. 

Another example of the people versus Westminster.

 

 

Show us the evidence where it is ‘the desire of the British people’ to leave without a deal.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show us the evidence where it is ‘the desire of the British people’ to leave without a deal.

The results'll roll in next week.

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The results'll roll in next week.

What, like ‘leave without a deal’ is on the ballot paper?

 

Or is this another fictitious claim to know ‘the will of the people’?!

Edited May 19, 20197 yr by Chomper Higgot

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What, like ‘leave without a deal’ is on the ballot paper?

 

Or is this another fictitious claim to know ‘the will of the people’?!

I think what probably happened is that the people that prepared the ballot paper, realised that remainers have problems reading buses, so they made it simple and just put 'leave' on the paper.

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 6:29 PM, nausea said:

I wonder what her exit strategy will be.

Secure a high paying job with a large multinational.

8 hours ago, puipuitom said:

IF an European army will be formed, than signed by the British Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, after which it has to be ratified in the British Parliament ( and all other national parliaments). So, as usual from Brexiteers: complete nonsense.

And if.. I presume the British army will be extremely happy to join a 450 mln inhabitants force instead on relying on a 65 mln inhabitants islands

We're already key players in NATO and have intelligence & security services that are among the best in the world. UK would gain nothing from such folly 

16 hours ago, evadgib said:

Had we left the week after the result was in & kept both hands on the tap from day 1 & watched the BMW's etc stack up @ Rotterdam we'd have been ideally placed to start those negotiation and they would have been quick.

 

& have an 'Owzat!' 

I place that on par with the brexiteers plan 'all we have to do is tell them we'll go, and the EU will roll over, afraid to lose out on all that business we're taking away'.

10 hours ago, puipuitom said:

IF an European army will be formed, than signed by the British Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, after which it has to be ratified in the British Parliament ( and all other national parliaments). So, as usual from Brexiteers: complete nonsense.

And if.. I presume the British army will be extremely happy to join a 450 mln inhabitants force instead on relying on a 65 mln inhabitants islands

 

As you’r very happy for the British armed forces to be drawn into future conflicts. Can you please tell us your nationality, then perhaps that could tell us were your coming from. 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I place that on par with the brexiteers plan 'all we have to do is tell them we'll go, and the EU will roll over, afraid to lose out on all that business we're taking away'.

And what were your thoughts up and Including the day of the vote that you subsequently lost?

Edited May 19, 20197 yr by evadgib

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show us the evidence where it is ‘the desire of the British people’ to leave without a deal.

 

 

The 2016 people’s referendum, followed by the two parties who included in their 2017 General Election manifesto a commitment to implement the referendum result,gaining 80% of the vote. Perhaps you can show me where the British did not desire to leave without a deal.

 

 

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

And what were your thoughts up and Including the day of the vote that you subsequently lost?

So you have no answer.

5 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

The 2016 people’s referendum, followed by the two parties who included in their 2017 General Election manifesto a commitment to implement the referendum result,gaining 80% of the vote. Perhaps you can show me where the British did not desire to leave without a deal.

 

 

Since 'no deal' was never mentioned your statement is nonsense, and you know it.

You may equate brexit with no deal, many who voted for brexit disagree.

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Since 'no deal' was never mentioned your statement is nonsense, and you know it.

You may equate brexit with no deal, many who voted for brexit disagree.

 

 

But many British people did, in fact know what they were voting for.

 

https://youtu.be/hzkfjGrEo68

Edited May 19, 20197 yr by nontabury

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you have no answer.

There wasn't a question but I note you skipped mine.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I place that on par with the brexiteers plan 'all we have to do is tell them we'll go, and the EU will roll over, afraid to lose out on all that business we're taking away'.

I would have thought they would be more scared of losing 1/4 of their funding.

11 hours ago, puipuitom said:

Only… not even 1/2 of the House of Commons to back that. And for a "leave" without mentioning any consequences.. only a 51,88 %, with 48,11 for "remain", whatever consequences. Time to split the "leave" in the several options. 

You are mixing up the UK electorate with the traitors in the commons. Why do you think we are in this situation now? We voted for No Deal because there was no question of any deal at that time. The Remainers and EU introduced the concept of a 'divorce deal' after Leave won, but they haven't even discussed the actual post-Brexit trading deal yet. Unfortunately for the Remainers, they can't quite get their BRINO Surrender Treaty through parliament.

Time to forget the losing Remainers and Leave No Deal. 

5 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Secure a high paying job with a large multinational.

I can guarantee one thing, you won't see them on Skid Row. It's one big gravy train, whichever side you're on.

12 hours ago, tebee said:

 

 

I'm not trying to censor anyone, i am just pointing out that if you write things that are easily provable as untrue, the veracity of everything you say becomes suspect. 

 

Indeed you seem to have disproved your own first statement with your second. if people were not talking about a deal where did the "easiest deal in history" come from ?

 

No deal would preclude  coming to any trade agreement until the terms of the withdrawal agreement were met, so insisting that no deal is what everybody was talking about them can not be true.  

You sound like Same Cooke 1962 - Twistin' the truth away. Sorry if you don't like it, but I'll not stop posting whether you think it's rubbish or not. You do not decide what posters can say here.

Your favoured version is wrong. After you lost the referendum there are now two deals. The quote about a "should be" deal was made post-brexit and related to the still-to-be-commenced trading deals. The current sticking point EU divorce deal was another invention in the wake of the unexpected Leave vote. They haven't even started on the "easiest deal in history" yet, because we haven't exited yet. The current Merkel/May Surrender Treaty is designed to effectively keep us in the EU,  and would frustrate any UK position in future trade deals.
No Deal does not preclude any trade agreements and it never did at referendum time. The principle of having to agree a 'divorce deal' and 'political declaration' before we can actually Leave was never considered until Remain lost. It was certainly not a prerequisite to Leaving or making new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I would have thought they would be more scared of losing 1/4 of their funding.

Apparently you're wrong.