Anti-Brexit party reveals candidates for emergency UK government

[nauseus]

30 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

No I didn't, I only mentioned the relevant parties when it comes to government.  Anything with Farage in only deserves ridicule and disdain.

 

So which parties don't deserve ridicule and disdain, then?

[7by7]

18 hours ago, AlexRich said:

But there would be a GE after the national unity government has sorted Brexit.

 

Not quite.

 

As I understand it from the various media, the national government would ask the EU to postpone Article 50 until after we have had a general election.

 

Assuming the EU agree,  the country can then decide via a general election which government we want; one who pushes through an increasingly unpopular no deal Brexit which no one voted for, or one which gives us, the British public, the democratic right to make the final decison, via a final, and this time binding, referendum.

[7by7]

 

@JAG, I don't dispute the facts in your post, but

7 hours ago, JAG said:

The voters (three times) and the Parliament which they elected have said we will leave, so leave we should.

The voters did not vote for a no deal Brexit; Vote.Leave and other leave campaigns never mentioned that nor the consequences of same. Neither did we vote in two elections to leave with no deal.

 

Parliament has voted against a no deal Brexit.

 

So if Johnson insists on leaving without a deal, not only is he aiding and abetting the subterfuge of the various leave campaigns, not surprising as he was a part of that subterfuge; more importantly he is also ignoring the will of Parliament.

 

Yet again a Brexiteers is in favour of the will of Parliament, except when you disagree with it!

[JAG]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

the democratic right to make the final decison, via a final, and this time binding, referendum.

Ah yes, a bit like this then?

 

 

[Reigntax]

19 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I'm marching are you ?

 

Organisers announce plans for the 'biggest political protest in British history' to stop Brexit

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/people-s-vote-brexit-protest-october-2019-1-6211767

I thought the biggest Brexit protest happened 2 years ago when the population voted.

[dunroaming]

53 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Oh yeah. Forgot, lattes and milk shakes. London again it is then. Easy for the Eurostar too. 

 

Be back in a whippet!

 

 

What is all this about the north.  Recently went up to Newcastle and it is virtually indistinguishable from Central London. At least shopping wise. Same fashion shops, upmarket cafe's and restaurants (same prices too) and a lot of very fashionable savvy people.  Same goes for central Manchester, where I went to uni.  No whippets in sight but plenty of jags and beemers

[Reigntax]

37 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

@JAG, I don't dispute the facts in your post, but

The voters did not vote for a no deal Brexit; Vote.Leave and other leave campaigns never mentioned that nor the consequences of same. Neither did we vote in two elections to leave with no deal.

 

Parliament has voted against a no deal Brexit.

 

So if Johnson insists on leaving without a deal, not only is he aiding and abetting the subterfuge of the various leave campaigns, not surprising as he was a part of that subterfuge; more importantly he is also ignoring the will of Parliament.

 

Yet again a Brexiteers is in favour of the will of Parliament, except when you disagree with it!

Actually I believe the parliament is in contempt of the peoples decision based on the referendum result.

There is no will of the parliament. Parliament represents the people...or is supposed to.

[dunroaming]

32 minutes ago, JAG said:

Ah yes, a bit like this then?

 

 

Notice the tag line. "I have every confidence we will achieve an agreement with the EU that works for Britain".  Should also say "however if we can't and we end up being out with no deal or the EU not playing ball then you just have to suck it up live with a truly crap outcome".

 

Because that is exactly where we are now and heaven forbid we had the opportunity to change our minds.

[dunroaming]

15 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

Actually I believe the parliament is in contempt of the peoples decision based on the referendum result.

There is no will of the parliament. Parliament represents the people...or is supposed to.

The will of the people in 2016 or the will of the people now?  I agree with you about parliament but it is only now that people can see the consequences of what Brexit actually means.

 

A general election appears to be the way forward so people can vote for the MP's who are on the same page as them today.

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Another cracking post, thanks. 

 

These second-rate excuses for politicians don't care really about a deal, or a even second vote (which they know they would probably lose): they just want stop Brexit with a parliamentary coup d'état, to remove government so that they can attempt to revoke Article 50. Anyone upset by Brexit now, will certainly enjoy the outcome far less, if British democracy is allowed to be run over this. 

 

 

The Remainers are up to their eyeballs in lies and cheating, and are now so immersed that they will try anything at this all-too-late stage. I don't think they would find it so easy as they imagine to change the course of Brexit. I doubt that revoking Article 50 would do the trick for them. It took an Act to be able to invoke Article 50, 'thanks' to Gina Miller & Co, so must take another Act to cancel it. Not easy.

There is also the crucial European Union (Withdrawal) Act which trumps anything in an Article 50 letter. That piece of legislation would be more difficult to repeal and they won't find time to junk it before we are officially out. 

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, Reigntax said:

Actually I believe the parliament is in contempt of the peoples decision based on the referendum result.

There is no will of the parliament. Parliament represents the people...or is supposed to.

In the General Election of 2015, the Great British voting public elected their representatives, over 75% of whom felt that remaining in the EU was in the best interests of the Country. Would you honestly expect them to abandon their principles, simply because just over half of those that were able to vote in an ill-conceived referendum one year later produced a contrary result?

 

The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy, which is why everyone from Clement "instrument of Nazism" Attlee to Margaret "device of dictators and demagogues" Thatcher have recognised a referendum as being contrary to British democracy.

 

And,  of course, in the 2017 General Election most of these MP's were re-elected. Indeed, the single UKIP MP was defeated by a pro-remain Tory. Don't blame the MP's when it's really the fault of the fickle voting public.

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Ah yes, a bit like this then?

 

 

Of course you have to remember that Cameron never considered for one moment that the Referendum vote would not go his way. All his rhetoric was aimed at the likes of Farage, encouraging him to give up once the vote had gone against him. Once he realised what a Horlicks he'd made he immediately ran for the hills, so I am always surprised that Leave supporters seem to hang on to his every (meaningless) word.

 

He was not alone though, as nobody from the Leave side anticipated the vote result either, so no plans were put in place to deal with the situation, which has led to today's impasse. If only someone at the time had had the guts to say "4% is never a sufficient majority to trigger an upheaval of this magnitude", we would all have been spared this debacle.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

the democratic right to make the final decison, via a final, and this time binding, referendum.

Ah yes, a bit like this then?

 The 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. As you can see, i am suggesting, or rather agreeing with the many politicians etc. who have suggested, that this referendum be binding.

 

Do you really need me to explain the difference between advisory and binding?

 

Even though the 2016 referendum was only advisory, May's government did commit to abiding by the result; but were blocked by Parliament.

 

As Parliament cannot, or will not, decide, put the decision back into the hands of the people; let us make the democratic decision on how we want to proceed. Isn't democracy something you Brexiteers believe in? You lot go on about it often enough!

 

But make the result of this referendum binding so it cannot be blocked by the likes of Cobyn and Rees-Mogg in Parliament.

 

 

[7by7]

 

2 hours ago, Reigntax said:

Actually I believe the parliament is in contempt of the peoples decision based on the referendum result.

There is no will of the parliament. Parliament represents the people...or is supposed to.

 Represent; yes. We elect MPs as representatives; they are not delegates. Delegates have to vote the way those who appoint them dictate; representatives vote according to their conscience; in theory anyway, voting as the whips tell them to is more accurate.

 

I repeat: the 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. Do you really need me to explain the difference between advisory and binding?

[evadgib]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. As you can see, i am suggesting, or rather agreeing with the many politicians etc. who have suggested, that this referendum be binding.

 

Do you really need me to explain the difference between advisory and binding?

 

Even though the 2016 referendum was only advisory, May's government did commit to abiding by the result; but were blocked by Parliament.

 

As Parliament cannot, or will not, decide, put the decision back into the hands of the people; let us make the democratic decision on how we want to proceed. Isn't democracy something you Brexiteers believe in? You lot go on about it often enough!

 

But make the result of this referendum binding so it cannot be blocked by the likes of Cobyn and Rees-Mogg in Parliament.

 

 

"This" referendum?

There isn't going to be another one. We're leaving on or before 31st October.

[JAG]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. As you can see, i am suggesting, or rather agreeing with the many politicians etc. who have suggested, that this referendum be binding.

 

Do you really need me to explain the difference between advisory and binding?

 

No, Mr Cameron explains it rather well. No matter what he may have thought, expected or hoped the result would be, he was quite clear that it was binding. When the result was not what he wanted, he "ran for the hills' yes, but he didn't seek to dismiss it as only advisory.

 

I think I am right in saying that by constitutional convention all referendums in the UK are advisory, be they on AV voting, Scottish independence or on EU membership. However, when the Prime Minister who calls them says they will be honoured, when both the governing party and the principal opposition party are elected on manifestos that promise to honour the result, and when that government introduces a bill to make that advice law, and parliament passes that act into law, well I would suggest that it is binding.

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, evadgib said:

"This" referendum?

There isn't going to be another one. We're leaving on 31st October.

'This referendum' being the potential one under discussion! 

 

The one which anyone who believes in democracy must support in order to give the final decision back to us, rather than leave it with politicians who after three years still can't, or wont, decide.

 

The one you Brexiteers don't want because you know that whilst all of the people can be fooled some of the time and some of the people can be fooled all of the time; it is impossible to fool all of the people all of the time.

 

Leaving on 31st October in the same way we were leaving on 29th March?

 

I wouldn't put money on it; in fact I've put money on the opposite!

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, JAG said:

No, Mr Cameron explains it rather well. No matter what he may have thought, expected or hoped the result would be, he was quite clear that it was binding. When the result was not what he wanted, he "ran for the hills' yes, but he didn't seek to dismiss it as only advisory.

 

I think I am right in saying that by constitutional convention all referendums in the UK are advisory, be they on AV voting, Scottish independence or on EU membership. However, when the Prime Minister who calls them says they will be honoured, when both the governing party and the principal opposition party are elected on manifestos that promise to honour the result, and when that government introduces a bill to make that advice law, and parliament passes that act into law, well I would suggest that it is binding.

 All referendums in the UK are, by convention, advisory. But, the Prime Minister can, when calling one, make a referendum binding.

 

As already stated, and ignored by you, when Cameron resigned and May took over, unopposed as Boris didn't want the job then as he was afraid of being held responsible for the mess in the way that May has been, she stood by Cameron's commitment to honour the result, and her commitment in the 2017 manifesto. Left to her, we would have left the EU on 29th March last.

 

She was blocked by Parliament, and much of the blame for that lies with Rees-Mogg with his ERG and others who put personal ambition above the best interests of the country.

 

This is why the result of another referendum, the call for which is gaining more and more support here in the UK, must be binding, so that Parliament has to abide by the will of the people.

 

Leave with a deal,

leave with no deal or

remain.

 

Vote for first and second choice. If no option receives at least 50% plus 1 of the first choice votes, then eliminate the choice with the fewest first choices and allocate those papers second choices accordingly to give the winner.

 

Brexiteers love to bang on and on about democracy, yet are afraid of giving us this final, democratic choice. Why? The answer's obvious.

 

[evadgib]

30 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

'This referendum' being the potential one under discussion! 

 

The one which anyone who believes in democracy must support in order to give the final decision back to us, rather than leave it with politicians who after three years still can't, or wont, decide.

 

The one you Brexiteers don't want because you know that whilst all of the people can be fooled some of the time and some of the people can be fooled all of the time; it is impossible to fool all of the people all of the time.

 

Leaving on 31st October in the same way we were leaving on 29th March?

 

I wouldn't put money on it; in fact I've put money on the opposite!

Farage & Co remain (no pun intended) in reserve either way.

[evadgib]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 All referendums in the UK are, by convention, advisory. But, the Prime Minister can, when calling one, make a referendum binding.

 

As already stated, and ignored by you, when Cameron resigned and May took over, unopposed as Boris didn't want the job then as he was afraid of being held responsible for the mess in the way that May has been, she stood by Cameron's commitment to honour the result, and her commitment in the 2017 manifesto. Left to her, we would have left the EU on 29th March last.

 

She was blocked by Parliament, and much of the blame for that lies with Rees-Mogg with his ERG and others who put personal ambition above the best interests of the country.

 

This is why the result of another referendum, the call for which is gaining more and more support here in the UK, must be binding, so that Parliament has to abide by the will of the people.

 

Leave with a deal,

leave with no deal or

remain.

 

Vote for first and second choice. If no option receives at least 50% plus 1 of the first choice votes, then eliminate the choice with the fewest first choices and allocate those papers second choices accordingly to give the winner.

 

Brexiteers love to bang on and on about democracy, yet are afraid of giving us this final, democratic choice. Why? The answer's obvious.

 

Your last line has been debunked every time you have brought it up. Why are you doing so again?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

Of course you have to remember that Cameron never considered for one moment that the Referendum vote would not go his way. All his rhetoric was aimed at the likes of Farage, encouraging him to give up once the vote had gone against him. Once he realised what a Horlicks he'd made he immediately ran for the hills, so I am always surprised that Leave supporters seem to hang on to his every (meaningless) word.

 

He was not alone though, as nobody from the Leave side anticipated the vote result either, so no plans were put in place to deal with the situation, which has led to today's impasse. If only someone at the time had had the guts to say "4% is never a sufficient majority to trigger an upheaval of this magnitude", we would all have been spared this debacle.

His words are now as meaningless as they were then. The majority didn't believe him and voted out.  

 

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Notice the tag line. "I have every confidence we will achieve an agreement with the EU that works for Britain".  Should also say "however if we can't and we end up being out with no deal or the EU not playing ball then you just have to suck it up live with a truly crap outcome".

 

Because that is exactly where we are now and heaven forbid we had the opportunity to change our minds.

Sky. Say no more.

[Handsome Gardener]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

Thanks for the excellent summary of events and facts! A good reminder for remainers.

and yet not one mention of a catastrophic no deal !!

 

It is truly amazing leavers are prepared to bury the UK to achieve their objectives ! Even more amazing they just can't see it !

 

I think I'm now up to my 14th request as to why the pound isn't flying if Brexit is a good idea ……..surely a TVF record for avoidance ?

[Handsome Gardener]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

My question would be 'how do we address the rampant inequality in the UK, where the elite have profited phenomenally thanks to the cruel and unnecessary austerity measures imposed by the government to funnel tax payers' money into their own offshore bank accounts?'. Is Boris Johnson the answer to that concern?

Any evidence ?

[Handsome Gardener]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Right, so the papers are all telling lies. 

 

Only you and your fellow Brexiteers know the truth. 

Along with the bankers, industrialists, retailers, scientists, doctors, manufacturers who are ALL telling lies, ALL part of 'project fear' - and who could doubt it up against the intellectual might of the brexiteers who have zero idea how it will pan out  !!

 

Ludicrous to suggest these people, experts in their field know what they are talking about.

[Handsome Gardener]

37 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Your last line has been debunked every time you have brought it up. Why are you doing so again?

So just explain why you are afraid and we can move on

[nauseus]

13 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

and yet not one mention of a catastrophic no deal !!

 

It is truly amazing leavers are prepared to bury the UK to achieve their objectives ! Even more amazing they just can't see it !

 

I think I'm now up to my 14th request as to why the pound isn't flying if Brexit is a good idea ……..surely a TVF record for avoidance ?

A catastrophic no deal is a remainer pet adjective.

 

Leavers can see the UK being buried if we stay in the EU but remainers can't!

 

The pound is falling due to uncertainty, speculation and negative sentiment. Big money loves the EU and can influence all these factors. We saw this 3 years ago. This has been explained before. The Euro is not doing well now either - worse than the Pound last week.

[nontabury]

23 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I'm marching are you ?

 

Organisers announce plans for the 'biggest political protest in British history' to stop Brexit

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/people-s-vote-brexit-protest-october-2019-1-6211767

 

Had a few days in London last week,and I noticed very few native Brits around. With all the hotel receptionist, workers, shop keepers speaking with a European accent. This leads me to think, from where will all those who intend to demonstrate against the British people’s Democratic decision to leave the E.u. Come from.

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

So just explain why you are afraid and we can move on

49 will explain, given he's repeatedly had the answer.

BTW: Your cover was blown much earlier than you realise. 

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

49 will explain, given he's repeatedly had the answer.

BTW: Your cover was blown much earlier than you realise. 

????????

 

Same old, same old questions were a bit of a giveaway.