Brexit: PM Johnson faces mounting legal, political, diplomatic challenges

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

Some think this way, some think that way... there are positives and negatives for everyone... everyone has their own set of reasons which suits them. Uh-huh. That's kiddy stuff. I'm talking about a far bigger thing than your Brexit opinion. The principle is the important thing here, and the principle is that losers must lose. I repeat, by refusing to lose, you are undermining the basis of all future political process. Is the remainers' egocentricity that big?

So Boris's refusal to lose in not being able to take the UK out of Europe on no deal and bypassing parliamentary democracy to satisfy his egocentricity is undermining the basis of all future political process is it? On that we can agree.

 

Remainer egocentricity? You're 'avin a giraffe mate!

[stephenterry]

16 minutes ago, petermik said:

My sorrow is for all the EU beaurocrats on huge salaries who may have to take pay cuts when we walk away......we voted OUT we want OUT

Go and lobby your MP, then. Which is your right.

[david555]

20 minutes ago, petermik said:

My sorrow is for all the EU beaurocrats on huge salaries who may have to take pay cuts when we walk away......we voted OUT we want OUT

Better feel sorrow for all the U.K. subsidized farmers who go loose that help , I think they need more to be sorrowed 

Edited September 3, 2019 by david555

[charlie farnsbarns]

13 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

What system breakdown? Breakdown of the economy is the important issue, or maybe the systm of parliamentary democracy is what you're referring to.

 

In a free society joining one of 2 camps is not the norm. Most democratic countries have several political parties (UK included) and coalitions are common (and not unheard of in the UK). Winning sides and losing sides? You really have zero grasp on how politics works in the world.

 

I think you are basing your understanding of politics on nothing but Brexit (and possible Trump) where there has been a calculated attempt by unscrupulous populist politicians to divide the country into 2 camps. This is not the norm.

There will be no breakdown of the economy, at worst a transitional slow-down, and very possibly long term benefits, especially as the EU begins to crumble once the UK is out, which is a fair prediction (why do you think they are being so punitive in letting us go?) - let's see, shall we?

 

There will be breakdown of parliamentary democracy when losers refuse to lose. We have seen it. We are seeing it. We will see more of it if it is allowed to happen. This is not a matter of opinion, it is self-evident.

 

The UK has two parties that periodically swing (supporters of the other parties don't understand their own pointlessness and waste their vote). Nobody wants to have a coalition government.

 

[Rimmer]

Flames and bickering posts also replies have been removed

[JonnyF]

25 minutes ago, david555 said:

Better feel sorrow for all the U.K. subsidized farmers who go loose that help , I think they need more to be sorrowed 

Where do you think the EU gets the money from to subsidize the UK farmers?

 

Greece?

Spain?

Poland?

Hungary?

 

We may as well cut out the middle man and just subsidize them ourselves.

[stephenterry]

37 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

Some think this way, some think that way... there are positives and negatives for everyone... everyone has their own set of reasons which suits them. Uh-huh. That's kiddy stuff. I'm talking about a far bigger thing than your Brexit opinion. The principle is the important thing here, and the principle is that losers must lose. I repeat, by refusing to lose, you are undermining the basis of all future political process. Is the remainers' egocentricity that big?

You have the democratic right to lobby your MP, and parliament would decide on a course of action - hopefully to benefit Britain. That's political democracy in action.

[david555]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Where do you think the EU gets the money from to subsidize the UK farmers?

 

Greece?

Spain?

Poland?

Hungary?

 

We may as well cut out the middle man and just subsidize them ourselves.

They are getting it from the E.U.  hence the contributions , so also for a part from your contributions …, fact is they receiving help ….so be prepared to replace the help in total by your own 

Edited September 3, 2019 by david555

[cleopatra2]

41 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

Some think this way, some think that way... there are positives and negatives for everyone... everyone has their own set of reasons which suits them. Uh-huh. That's kiddy stuff. I'm talking about a far bigger thing than your Brexit opinion. The principle is the important thing here, and the principle is that losers must lose. I repeat, by refusing to lose, you are undermining the basis of all future political process. Is the remainers' egocentricity that big?

Parllament is where politicians are supposed to debate the issues and reach a concess on what is best for the country.

It is not about losing or winning.

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, david555 said:

They are getting it from the E.U.  hence the contributions , so also for a part from your contributions …, fact is they receiving help ….so be prepared to replace the help in total by your own 

We are a net contributor. Which means we pay more in than we get back. So if we "replace the help in total by our own" then we will still have money left over to spend on other things.

 

Capeesh?

[thasoss]

15 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Parllament is where politicians are supposed to debate the issues and reach a concess on what is best for the country.

It is not about losing or winning

surely it is about winning and losing 52-48% voted to leave.

remainers are being dishonest,they should accept the decision.the current rebellion is dishonest too,they are using ้hard brexit' now as their excuse,but in all honesty they dont want any brexit to take place..period!

And it's my honest opinion that when the referendum was first mooted a clause should have been inserted that any outcome must be 60-40 in favour of any result that may have put this whole thing to bed.

As it is this issue now is too divisive and it's going to end in tears.

Edited September 3, 2019 by thasoss

[thasoss]

11 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

But it is promised, eh, the 31st of October next, no later this time.

Who knows victor.But Brussels will be squirming as no one is meant to leave.

[david555]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

We are a net contributor. Which means we pay more in than we get back. So if we "replace the help in total by our own" then we will still have money left over to spend on other things.

 

Capeesh?

yes usual bla bla bla 

[cleopatra2]

21 minutes ago, thasoss said:

surely it is about winning and losing 52-48% voted to leave.

remainers are being dishonest,they should accept the decision.the current rebellion is dishonest too,they are using ้hard brexit' now as their excuse,but in all honesty they dont want any brexit to take place..period!

And it's my honest opinion that when the referendum was first mooted a clause should have been inserted that any outcome must be 60-40 in favour of any result that may have put this whole thing to bed.

As it is this issue now is too divisive and it's going to end in tears.

The leave campaign won.

It is now up to Parluament to reach a concess on the type of leave is best for the country 

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, Forethat said:

Did someone do that? If someone did, feel free to engage in a debate with that person. I never did, so I don't mind if you stop pinging me.

Thanks.

Your words "Normal party conference recess is three weeks." in trying to defend something that is neither normal or a recess.

If however you were trying to say the prorogation is not a normal alternative to conference recess and has been forced on parliament without consultation then I apologise.

[sandyf]

59 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Where do you think the EU gets the money from to subsidize the UK farmers?

 

Greece?

Spain?

Poland?

Hungary?

 

We may as well cut out the middle man and just subsidize them ourselves.

How has that worked out for the NHS, social care, police.etc.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, david555 said:

BTW why his fooling still the Brits , as there are no negotiations with E.U. going on  and not planned ….talks yes as polite as E.U. is talks....just talks...  as a visitor with a cup of tea with even a slice of cake but no cherry's …, again using lies to win time ...just hoping to please H.O.C. that he is getting a new better deal …..forget as they say over and over again  ,what is  on the table is the only one,....May's deal .

 

Exactly. The EU has said that if the UK wants to do the talking they will do the listening, nothing to do with negotiating that is just a Bojo distraction.

[thasoss]

remainer mp's dont wantto leave hence the word remainer...so what good would parliament be?..remainers should go away, they were defeated in the referendum....and should be graceful in defeat.

[thasoss]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Exactly. The EU has said that if the UK wants to do the talking they will do the listening, nothing to do with negotiating that is just a Bojo distraction.

They listen but do not hear...it's not in Brussels interest to give the UK a good exit,others may want to follow.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Where do you think the EU gets the money from to subsidize the UK farmers?

 

Greece?

Spain?

Poland?

Hungary?

 

We may as well cut out the middle man and just subsidize them ourselves.

That is effectively what happens anyway.

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, sandyf said:

How has that worked out for the NHS, social care, police.etc.

Separate issues. EU subsidies to UK farmers are available due to UK contributions.

[JonnyF]

58 minutes ago, sandyf said:

How has that worked out for the NHS, social care, police.etc.

Not too bad. Would have been better if we hadn't been subsidizing other EU countries though. Anyway, after October 31st we can spend UK taxpayers money on UK projects rather than sending it to the EU and hoping we get a percentage of it back.

[Loiner]

They are getting it from the E.U.  hence the contributions , so also for a part from your contributions …, fact is they receiving help ….so be prepared to replace the help in total by your own 

“They are getting it from the EU...” sums it all up for a net Receiver country doesn’t it?
They all think it’s free money. It’s the few contributor countries like UK which pay for everything EU. Let them try that when we’ve gone.

[david555]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

“They are getting it from the EU...” sums it all up for a net Receiver country doesn’t it?
They all think it’s free money. It’s the few contributor countries like UK which pay for everything EU. Let them try that when we’ve gone.

Now for once and for all , if you U.K. where not having  an advantage to bin a member …., then you must bin utterly stupid to join ,but the story is different as it gave you U.K. the opportunity to get out your bad situation.... or do you think you'r so missed and admired icon M. Thatcher was stupid to almost fight her way in against De Gaulle's veto's??

She knew better …..

[sandyf]

57 minutes ago, thasoss said:

They listen but do not hear...it's not in Brussels interest to give the UK a good exit,others may want to follow.

You should remember who asked to leave what.

In Feb 2016 the EU published a document on how an Article 50 application would be handled, something the UK would have agreed to and well before the referendum. The UK government however refused to follow the guidelines they had agreed to, and of course everyone blames the EU and in particular the Commission for acting on behalf of the Heads of Government of the member states.

 

"The European Council (without the participation of the Member State concerned) then provides guidelines for the negotiations between the EU and the state concerned, with the aim of concluding an agreement setting out concrete withdrawal arrangements."

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf

[sandyf]

25 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Not too bad. Would have been better if we hadn't been subsidizing other EU countries though. Anyway, after October 31st we can spend UK taxpayers money on UK projects rather than sending it to the EU and hoping we get a percentage of it back.

If it was "Not too bad", there would have been a totally different result.

After Oct 31st all this additional funding will certainly be coming from the taxpayer, time to wake up to reality.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Separate issues. EU subsidies to UK farmers are available due to UK contributions.

So you think that post brexit the farmers will get priority over the essential services, the red bus money is now going to the farmers, good one.

[theoldgit]

13 minutes ago, david555 said:

Now for once and for all , if you U.K. where not having  an advantage to bin a member …., then you must bin utterly stupid to join ,but the story is different as it gave you U.K. the opportunity to get out your bad situation.... or do you think you'r so missed and admired icon M. Thatcher was stupid to almost fight her way in against De Gaulle's veto's??

She knew better …..

De Gaulles veto, or "non" was in 1967, 12 years before Maggie Thatcher became PM.
In fact when she became PM, the UK had been a member for 6 years.

[david555]

26 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

De Gaulles veto, or "non" was in 1967, 12 years before Maggie Thatcher became PM.
In fact when she became PM, the UK had been a member for 6 years.

So who was the one who dragged you in that bad deal organization ,which P.M.? 

Anyway thanks for the History lesson ...

And this is not taking away the fact De Gaulle was a clairvoyant to  find U.K. did not fitted in ...as proven now 5555 lol????

Edited September 3, 2019 by david555

[bangrak]

3 hours ago, petermik said:

My sorrow is for all the EU beaurocrats on huge salaries who may have to take pay cuts when we walk away......we voted OUT we want OUT

Hmm, you make me think about something: what will happen with/to the thousands(!) of British b(ur)eaucrats earning 'huge salaries' working for the EU (as part of the UK's staff quota in the EU's administration), and with the family of most of them presently comfortably living in Belgium, Luxemburg, France, ...? ???? ?!?