No-deal Brexit will be stopped, Hammond says

[Handsome Gardener]

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The UK need the backstop to be removed or drastically altered in order to get a deal through Parliament. That is the reality as proven by 3 decisive votes against the deal in the HoC. 

The EU are saying the withdrawal agreement is now non-negotiable. 

 

If you ask me Mr Hammond, it's the EU's current position that will lead to a no deal. You're blaming the wrong side. 

A position that was agreed by the democratically elected UK leader - who's position was it again ?

[Handsome Gardener]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

You would do well to concentrate on what it did say, rather than what it didn't say, you will end up in a state of confusion.

If you could comprehend for just a fleeting moment what it didn't say is the issue - you would finally understand why all the talk of democracy being trashed with calls for a rethink, are <deleted> !

[CG1 Blue]

3 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The UK need the backstop to be removed or drastically altered in order to get a deal through Parliament. That is the reality as proven by 3 decisive votes against the deal in the HoC. 

The EU are saying the withdrawal agreement is now non-negotiable. 

 

If you ask me Mr Hammond, it's the EU's current position that will lead to a no deal. You're blaming the wrong side. 

A position that was agreed by the democratically elected UK leader - who's position was it again ?

The UK's position is decided by the UK Parliament, not by one person. Did you learn nothing from Gina Miller? 

[Handsome Gardener]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

There is no confusion at all by leavers, confusion occurs when remainers start to make statements like 'it didn't say .........' there are probably millions of things it didn't say, so when you find yourself in a position like that, it would be better to look at what it did say, i e.......leave or remain.

I hope when you get a contract you read what it says and you don't spend all week looking for things it doesn't say.

 

 

You've never been in business have you - spotting what contracts DON'T say separates the savvy from the gullible as you have expertly proven !

 

[Handsome Gardener]

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The UK's position is decided by the UK Parliament, not by one person. Did you learn nothing from Gina Miller? 

You might be onto something - so the majority of the UK parliament want to avoid a no deal Brexit but Bojo looks to be hellbent on ramming it through regardless ?

 

Ironic much ?

[vogie]

14 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

If you could comprehend for just a fleeting moment what it didn't say is the issue - you would finally understand why all the talk of democracy being trashed with calls for a rethink, are <deleted> !

But I do comprehend what it did say, it said leave or remain, you can dress it up as much as you like and put a Noddy hat on it if you like, it still said leave or remain, hope you comprehend.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

There is no confusion at all by leavers, confusion occurs when remainers start to make statements like 'it didn't say .........' there are probably millions of things it didn't say, so when you find yourself in a position like that, it would be better to look at what it did say, i e.......leave or remain.

I hope when you get a contract you read what it says and you don't spend all week looking for things it doesn't say.

 

 

Or would it be advisable to  look for things in a contract that in favourable or rational terms were "left out" ? Is that the "doesn't  say " type of detail you  refer to?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

Boris is the boss, he will try (without success) to dissolve parliament, for him MP's have no say so, looking forward seeing him arguing with the speaker of the house...  unelected people at 10 downing, appointed by Boris, it's democracy at its best

It is long past the time that the 650 "elected" people in parliament listened to the 17.4 million voters who voted to leave. Philip Hammond should talk to his constituents before stating what he will do. 

 

https://leave.eu/get-philip-hammond-deselected/

 

http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/runnymede-and-weybridge

 

 

 

 

[CNXexpat]

For non-Brits it´s so annoying: yes, no, perhaps, yes or no with deal but nobody knows what kind of deal, yes or nor without deal... - hopefully it has an end soon, but I guess we´ll talk about the Brexit in 3 years because nothing happened and the Brits still can´t make a decision. 

[Cadbury]

Bring back James Hacker and the Euro sausage argument. Brussels will soon back down.

[CG1 Blue]

33 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

You might be onto something - so the majority of the UK parliament want to avoid a no deal Brexit but Bojo looks to be hellbent on ramming it through regardless ?

 

Ironic much ?

The majority in the UK Parliament want to remain in the EU, and have tried every trick to make that happen. Boris wants a deal, but will allow us to leave if the EU refuse to budge on the backstop. He's not 'ramming' anything through, he's simply allowing the A50 legal process to take it's course. A process that the UK Parliament voted to trigger, weirdly. 

[vogie]

For all those remain politicians who said leaving the EU on WTO was not regularly used, it was infact regularly used by themselves, including Philip Hammond.

 

[vogie]

58 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

You've never been in business have you - spotting what contracts DON'T say separates the savvy from the gullible as you have expertly proven !

 

I have ran a business thanks very much and I do know what it said on the referendum leaflet, it seems you are struggling a tad. Leave or remain, not difficult for most people to understand.

Insulting me will not alter what was written on the said document.

Edited August 14, 2019 by vogie

[david555]

(A different tune is coming from the U.S. ….than Trump's camp promise...) The Irish lobby is showing their power ...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/14/no-chance-of-us-uk-deal-if-northern-ireland-peace-at-risk-pelosi

No chance of US-UK deal if Northern Ireland peace at risk - Pelosi

Senior US politician says Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil Good

There is no chance of Congress approving a US-UK trade agreement if Brexit undermines the Good Friday peace agreement between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has said.

Pelosi was restating the entrenched position of congressional Democrats and many Republicans in the wake of remarks made by Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, during a visit to London this week.

Bolton had said that Britain and the US could sign interim, partial free trade deals, one sector at a time, which would go through the a fast track legislative process, to help the UK cope economically if there is a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.

 

more...

Edited August 14, 2019 by david555

[Bluespunk]

Reality setting in and johnson starting to lose the plot, implying mps who do not agree with his “mission” are collaborators. 

 

Boris Johnson: Brexit opponents 'collaborating' with EU https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49348072

Edited August 14, 2019 by Bluespunk

[johnnybangkok]

Anonymous FB post:-

"I'm not saying there wasn't a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I'm just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish in a restaurant that is known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I've been waiting for three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish have quit and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next 5 minutes whether it's cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appear to be on fire but no one is paying attention because they are all arguing about fish, I would quit like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still want the fish."

Edited August 14, 2019 by johnnybangkok

[Monomial]

22 minutes ago, vogie said:

For all those remain politicians who said leaving the EU on WTO was not regularly used, it was infact regularly used by themselves, including Philip Hammond.

 

 

That's a pretty damning montage of discussions for those who are saying that anyone who voted "leave" was not aware of the consequences. I think if this was a civil contract a judge would rule that the possibility of leaving without a deal should have been known by those who signed, and therefore the contract stands.  The fact that the specific probability of a no deal exit was not explicitly stated is not a reason to abrogate the agreement.

 

Of course, this is not a contract. It is an issue of parliament, but in the absence of any better precedent I think the burden of proof is definitely on those who say the UK can not exit without a deal to justify their line of reasoning. The information was clearly available to informed voters in 2016, and those who wanted to remain in the EU definitely brought it up on several occasions.  Remain should have made a bigger issue of a "No-deal Brexit" before the vote if they were seriously concerned about it.

 

As an impartial 3rd party who is neither an EU nor a UK citizen, I have to say that the "leave" side definitely just won their case in my view. Of course, in the end whatever I think is meaningless.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

That's a pretty damning montage of discussions for those who are saying that anyone who voted "leave" was not aware of the consequences. I think if this was a civil contract a judge would rule that the possibility of leaving without a deal should have been known by those who signed, and therefore the contract stands.  The fact that the specific probability of a no deal exit was not explicitly stated is not a reason to abrogate the agreement.

 

Of course, this is not a contract. It is an issue of parliament, but in the absence of any better precedent I think the burden of proof is definitely on those who say the UK can not exit without a deal to justify their line of reasoning. The information was clearly available to informed voters in 2016, and those who wanted to remain in the EU definitely brought it up on several occasions.  Remain should have made a bigger issue of a "No-deal Brexit" before the vote if they were seriously concerned about it.

 

As an impartial 3rd party who is neither an EU nor a UK citizen, I have to say that the "leave" side definitely just won their case in my view. Of course, in the end whatever I think is meaningless.

Your input is not meaningless, you make more sense than half of the remain experts.????????

[7by7]

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The ballot form said Leave or Remain. In the run up to the referendum the public were given all different versions of Leave, and were explicitly told all the dangers of leaving.

The public, knowing all the different possible Leave outcomes, and taking on board all the dire warnings from Cameron and Osborne voted to Leave. They didn't vote to Remain in the EU. 

 Utter tosh.

 

Vote.Leave told us that voting leave meant ditching all the bits we didn't like about the EU and keeping all the bits we did like.

 

Not once was becoming just the second country, alongside Mauritania, trading on WTO terms alone mentioned!

 

Whenever the Remain side brought up the dangers of leaving Vote.Leave merely chanted their mantra; "Project Fear, Project Fear, Project Fear......." rather than actually address the issues.

[beautifulthailand99]

I care not any more for the arguments - the only game in town is stop this madness by "any means necessary" and we will. Tebee and others take heart it ain't over yet and the final fightback has begun. Yes, the majority of capital was anti-Brexit unlike a majority of the English working class, but the pro-Brexit capital played much dirtier and won. Their second trick of turning no-deal into an act of patriotic self-belief is one of the most disgusting and successful manipulations of public opinion I have ever seen, and I am sure that lots of funding has been poured into pulling it off. 2nd Referendum or Revoke A50 pass it on - support your sovereign national parliament not the Eton-coup cabal. The no-deal leavers are a small minority and we will crush them , their arguments and their lies. 

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/brexit-dark-money-and-big-data/

[beautifulthailand99]

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Utter tosh.

 

Vote.Leave told us that voting leave meant ditching all the bits we didn't like about the EU and keeping all the bits we did like.

 

Not once was becoming just the second country, alongside Mauritania, trading on WTO terms alone mentioned!

 

Whenever the Remain side brought up the dangers of leaving Vote.Leave merely chanted their mantra; "Project Fear, Project Fear, Project Fear......." rather than actually address the issues.

They have no arguments just parroted meaningless buzzwords pulled off Facebook memes and the rantings of "men in white flapping coats" John Major. Time to take back control . 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

5 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The ballot form said Leave or Remain. In the run up to the referendum the public were given all different versions of Leave, and were explicitly told all the dangers of leaving.

The public, knowing all the different possible Leave outcomes, and taking on board all the dire warnings from Cameron and Osborne voted to Leave. They didn't vote to Remain in the EU. 

 Utter tosh.

 

Vote.Leave told us that voting leave meant ditching all the bits we didn't like about the EU and keeping all the bits we did like.

 

Not once was becoming just the second country, alongside Mauritania, trading on WTO terms alone mentioned!

 

Whenever the Remain side brought up the dangers of leaving Vote.Leave merely chanted their mantra; "Project Fear, Project Fear, Project Fear......." rather than actually address the issues.

Watch the video, post #43 from Vogie. Leaving without a deal was mentioned countless times. The remain campaign made it absolutely clear no deal was a possibility. 

The government at the time consistently pointed out the 'risks' of leaving without a deal. The government leaflet posted to every UK household (costing the tax payer £9m)  mentioned a leave vote would mean leaving the CU and the Single Market.  

 

Or are you suggesting the public only listened to the Vote.Leave campaign? I repeat:

 

The public, knowing all the different possible Leave outcomes, and taking on board all the dire warnings from Cameron and Osborne voted to Leave. They didn't vote to Remain in the EU. 

 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

They have no arguments just parroted meaningless buzzwords pulled off Facebook memes and the rantings of "men in white flapping coats" John Major. Time to take back control . 

You mean meaningless buzzwords like 'Unicorns'? 

John Major is a fervent remainer. The same John Major who supported us joining the disastrous exchange rate mechanism, and the same John Major who sneaked the Lisbon Treaty through without consulting the public. 

And it's too late to take back control I'm afraid. The clock is ticking. We're as good as out. 

 

P.S. I hear that fool Marcus Ball failed again in his attempt to stop Brexit by suing Boris. His pointless appeal was thrown out today. 

[Emdog]

I reckon not so much Shakespearian as Monty Python:

Ministry of Silly Walkss

Complaint or argument business sketch....

"Is she a goer?"

[Dumbastheycome]

10 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Or would it be advisable to  look for things in a contract that in favourable or rational terms were "left out" ? Is that the "doesn't  say " type of detail you  refer to?

For those that may find my comment confusing or otherwise I made it intending to define the expectation of due diligence in the scrutiny of a "contract".  Such due diligence would include questioning the  absence of detail as much as questioning initial face value of wording.

The Brexit referendum question was highly deficient  and most in retrospect would agree that was mostly due to the NON expectation of a "leave' majority as well as some suspicion it was deliberate on behalf of core advocates.

Those  "Leavers" that argue the "principle" of Democratic due process must be superior ignore the fact that the Brexit  Referendum  was  an advisory rather than a  binding referendum. Therefore there is  great validity in the call for a second referendum presented as a  binding confirmation either way based on the now more informed complexities and impact which go well beyond the more obvious issue with the  Irish border.

Unfortunately the UK Government is and has been hell bent on pursuing a divisive course that IMO defies genuine democratic principle to the UK population.

So be it.

 

 

 

 

[bannork]

21 minutes ago, Emdog said:

I reckon not so much Shakespearian as Monty Python:

Ministry of Silly Walkss

Complaint or argument business sketch....

"Is she a goer?"

" Is this a 5 minute argument or the full half-hour?"

[chrissables]

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

No. Voted for was 'leave', which was not specified.

A leave vote meant by default IF no deal could be made within the specified time WTO would come into effect.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, chrissables said:

A leave vote meant by default IF no deal could be made within the specified time WTO would come into effect.

I'm sure it did to you.

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

No. Voted for was 'leave', which was not specified.

Leaving with no deal is Leaving. In fact it is the purest form of Leaving since we leave everything (customs union, single market etc.). We did not vote for BRINO, we voted to leave. The video earlier in the thread shows that WTO terms were discussed many times in 2016 in an attempt to scare people into voting Remain and it failed, the public were aware of this potential outcome and still voted to Leave.

 

You may not like it. But leaving with or without a deal is what the people voted for. You just cannot accept losing the vote and you are prepared to sideline democracy to get your own way.

[NanLaew]

11 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The UK's position is decided by the UK Parliament, not by one person.

So can someone tell Speaker Bercow to keep his bloody trap shut?!