UK lawmakers against no-deal Brexit to bring forward legislation

[DannyCarlton]

8 minutes ago, Forethat said:

My point was that if EU introduces legal frameworks or new legislation, unknown at the time of UK becoming EU-members, should Brexiters have the right to demand a "people's vote" to decide whether UK should stay or not, but I guess you didn't get that. Either.

 

I should also point out that UK did in fact endorse the agreement and voted to adopt the Global Compact on Migration on 19 December 2018.

Something that you failed to point out in your previous post but I did point out in my post.

 

 

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

 

For instance, EU are about to introduce laws that criminalises criticism against migration politics. They also suggest that laws are introduced that allows the EU to shut down any media that publishes criticism against migration. In essence, we're talking about restricting free speech. If the people say No to Leave with No Deal, should we be allowed to demand a peoples vote on Remain with restricted free speech?   

 

 

 

The EU have done nothing of the sort. Blatantly misleading. It was a a UN initiative not an EU initiative. EU weren't invited and not asked to sign on to the agreement. It was for Sovereign nations only as per normal UN practice.

 

As I have said, several EU countries didn't sign but the UK did.

 

I'm sorry but you have knowingly posted a blatant lie to try to forward the Brexit cause. Normal practice for Brexiteers.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I agree with what you say overall, and well put , but please note - the militant left already got there, they have been trying to deselect any MPs who don't worship the Messiah for a few years already. Fortunately a large part of the party have woken up to the fact that Corbyn's childish Europhobia is a millstone round the party's neck, possibly too late.

He probably won't last that long, you'll never get so lucky again.

Make hay while the sun shines.

[bristolboy]

59 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"For instance, EU are about to introduce laws that criminalises criticism against migration politics. They also suggest that laws are introduced that allows the EU to shut down any media that publishes criticism against migration."

 

Please provide proof of this, first time I have heard of it and I doubt it very, very much.

I think Forethat is confused. He conflated a lie told about the migration pact by an MEP

 

One objection aired by Dutch MEP Marcel de Graaff is that the agreement sets the precedent for countries to enact law that makes:   “criticism of migration … a criminal offense.”  

...The document asks nations to “commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination…against all migrants.” And any country that took this further and tried to criminalise criticism of migration would likely be breaching human rights legislation. 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/inaccuracies-spreading-about-un-migration-pact/

 

with the EU proposing such legislation.

His contention is just flat out false.

 

 

[Forethat]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So the UK was present, the Uk agreed but you still feel the need to blame the EU because you don't agree with it.

 

BTW, the YouTube video you gave earlier was hardly proof, it was the opinion of one person. I'd be much more interested in what the media have to say, they are usually very assertive when it comes to their rights.

When you say "media", are you referring to MSM or alternative media? Earlier this year, EU voted on a new Internet copyright directive. Personally I'm most upset with articles 11 and 13 since the only thing achieved is to restrict small media outlets and individuals from getting involved. Alternative media could well seize to exist. From a free speech perspective I'm not so sure this is a good idea, but it IS a good idea if you want to restrict alternative media and free speech. Shut people up, so to speak.

 

Again, my point is that none of this was known at the time of the 1975 referendum. It wasn't even known at the 2016 referendum. And my question was whether Brexiters (using the Remainer-tactics) are allowed to demand a Peoples Vote to decide if we want to Remain on the new conditions? 

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

From your link.

 

The global compact on migration (GCM) is of a non-legally binding nature. In 2017, the United States, which initially under the Obama administration supported the GCM in 2016, decided to withdraw its commitment to the GCM, as the Trump administration prefers to apply a more protectionist version of the principle of sovereignty, particularly regarding border management. The current US administration felt that the GCM would be incompatible with US sovereignty. Similar fears were echoed also by other statesthat did not in the end endorse the GCM in Marrakech. These countries include Austria,Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland (Switzerland delayed its support until after a vote in parliament).

 

So the UK signing on to a UN policy which many others chose not too.

Nothing to do with the EU. (Unless the USA and Australia etc have joined in the last few weeks?).

Don't you love the idea of having to sign something that isn't binding. I wonder who came up with that idea...

Should ring a bell somewhere.

[Nigel Garvie]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

So why has the Labour party done nothing about it/him, and the even bigger question is why was he voted leader in the first place...?  We ALL know his history.....

1) They have tried, Owen Smith (I think it was) challenged him. His naive young supporters won the day.

2) Why was he voted leader in the first place?.............at bit too complicated to answer in a post. Many factors including change in the voting system, the support of Len the Gross, disaffected youth responding to his rehashed Benn speeches, etc etc. I expect the Tories broke out the champagne when he won the leadership contest.

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

So why has the Labour party done nothing about it/him, and the even bigger question is why was he voted leader in the first place...?  We ALL know his history.....

It's complex but was basically a carefully planned and well executed plan to infitrate and take control of Labour constituencies by Momentum. Not dissimilar to the tactics used by Derek Hatton's Militant back in the day.

 

I can assure you that many traditional Labour supporters are less than happy about these tactics or having Corbyn as their leader.

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Don't you love the idea of having to sign something that isn't binding. I wonder who came up with that idea...

Should ring a bell somewhere.

Fair play to you mate you made me laugh with that ????

[Forethat]

28 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Something that you failed to point out in your previous post but I did point out in my post.

 

 

 

The EU have done nothing of the sort. Blatantly misleading. It was a a UN initiative not an EU initiative. EU weren't invited and not asked to sign on to the agreement. It was for Sovereign nations only as per normal UN practice.

 

As I have said, several EU countries didn't sign but the UK did.

 

I'm sorry but you have knowingly posted a blatant lie to try to forward the Brexit cause. Normal practice for Brexiteers.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. EU was invited to work with the UN on prepare the initiative and have been present all the time. 

For heavens sake, a simple google search before you engage your TVF posting isn't too much to ask for, is it..?

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/subject-files.html?id=20170801CDT01641

 

However, my intention wasn't to discuss this UN-initiative that has lead to an EU-resolution, but to raise the question as to whether Brexiters should be allowed to demand a "Peoples Vote" on Remain each time EU changes?

Edited September 2, 2019 by Forethat

[tebee]

51 minutes ago, tebee said:

My point is you can't validly use the 2016 referendum to support leaving with no deal as the will of the people. it's not and never has been.

 

49 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes you can and they have, now please answer the question.

I will agree that people do try and use it as support for no deal, but my point was you can't validly use it. It's not what was on offer then.

[DannyCarlton]

14 minutes ago, Forethat said:

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. EU was invited and present. 

For heavens sake, a simple google search before you engage your TVF posting isn't too much to ask for, is it..?

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/subject-files.html?id=20170801CDT01641

1. Your link provives no evidence that they attended the December 2018 confrence.

2. If they did it would have been as observers, the EU doesn't have an official role at the UN.

 

You saying that the EU adopted the proposals is a blatant lie.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[Forethat]

5 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

1. Your link provives no evidence that they attended the December 2018 confrence.

2. If they did it would have been as observers, the EU doesn't have an official role at the UN.

 

You saying that the EU adopted the proposals is a blatant lie.

 

 

EU resolution TA-8-2018-0118

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0118_EN.html

 

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Edited September 2, 2019 by Forethat

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, Forethat said:

When you say "media", are you referring to MSM or alternative media? Earlier this year, EU voted on a new Internet copyright directive. Personally I'm most upset with articles 11 and 13 since the only thing achieved is to restrict small media outlets and individuals from getting involved. Alternative media could well seize to exist. From a free speech perspective I'm not so sure this is a good idea, but it IS a good idea if you want to restrict alternative media and free speech. Shut people up, so to speak.

 

Again, my point is that none of this was known at the time of the 1975 referendum. It wasn't even known at the 2016 referendum. And my question was whether Brexiters (using the Remainer-tactics) are allowed to demand a Peoples Vote to decide if we want to Remain on the new conditions? 

No, that is not your point.

 

You quoted a conference, saying it was to become EU law. Sorry, big fat lie.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

You are deviating, you asked about another referendum, do you think there would be a point to one if they are going to ignore it if they don't get the answer they want?

If there is another referendum, and the vote is fair , no foreign interference, shadowy funding and all the people who are affected by it are allowed to  vote, then yes I will accept the will of the people.

 

But that won't stop me campaigning to rejoin the EU afterwards  - but then that is my democratic right.

[Forethat]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, that is not your point.

 

You quoted a conference, saying it was to become EU law. Sorry, big fat lie.

There's already an EU resolution in place. I have no doubt there will be legislation in place soon.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0118_EN.html

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Forethat

[IssanMichael]

 

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

EU resolution TA-8-2018-0118

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0118_EN.html

 

You really don't have a clue, do you?

"Having regard to" doesn't mean "signed on to", it just means aknowledges. No commitment to adopt.

 

They did not sign on to the agreement, or agree to adopt it. You lied.

 

I also think tat you should read Bristolboy's post. Anotrher example of you misconstruing the truth

41 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think Forethat is confused. He conflated a lie told about the migration pact by an MEP

 

One objection aired by Dutch MEP Marcel de Graaff is that the agreement sets the precedent for countries to enact law that makes:   “criticism of migration … a criminal offense.”  

...The document asks nations to “commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination…against all migrants.” And any country that took this further and tried to criminalise criticism of migration would likely be breaching human rights legislation. 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/inaccuracies-spreading-about-un-migration-pact/

 

with the EU proposing such legislation.

His contention is just flat out false.

 

 

Don't worry, it's normal for Brexiteers to misquote, miscontrue and blatantly lie to present falshoods as facts to further their untenable agenda. Usually trhey do that with banal rhetoric, but you,sir, are a different order of things.

[lensta]

6 hours ago, Estrada said:

63% did not vote to leave the majority now wants to remain.

The 20% that didn't had the chance to vote and chose not to. They should shut the <deleted> up and stop moaning.

[elliss]

5 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Yes and all those in that clip were saying we would get a deal.

 

   What if any plans are in place , for a No deal brexit .

    Answers on a postcard please , that should be big enough..       

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by elliss

[vogie]

30 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

I will agree that people do try and use it as support for no deal, but my point was you can't validly use it. It's not what was on offer then.

Your original point was asking the electorate for another vote.

 

My point was, what would be the point if it was going to be ignored, can you understand that.

 

2 hours ago, tebee said:

go back to the people and ask for a mandate to leave with no deal

So are you standing by with what you said, or can you see the frutility of another vote?

[Forethat]

23 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

1. Your link provives no evidence that they attended the December 2018 confrence.

2. If they did it would have been as observers, the EU doesn't have an official role at the UN.

 

You saying that the EU adopted the proposals is a blatant lie.

 

 

The European Union was present during the December 2018 Conference. They had an active role and participated in plenary meetings, dialogues and interactive discussions.

 

Report from Monday 10 December 2018, Dialoge 1 (Promoting action on the commitments of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration)

Quote

"The following panelists made presentations: Mr. Stefano Scarpetta, Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Ms. Tendayi Achiume, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and Mr. David Fine, Global Head of McKinsey’s Public and Social Sector Practice. An interactive discussion ensued, during which statements were made by the representatives of the Congo, the Philippines, Panama, China, Belarus, Thailand, Nigeria, Germany, Russian Federation, Holy see, France, Peru, Ethiopia, Nepal, TimorLeste, Finland, European Union, Morocco, Turkey, Libya, Mali, the United Kingdom, Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Sudan, Eritrea and Cameroon"

https://www.un.org/en/conf/migration/assets/pdf/Summary-of-official-meeting-GCM-10-Dec-18.pdf

 

Here's a video from the session in question (I won't be surprised if you call that a lie as well, that appears to be your style when you've lost an argument)

 

http://webtv.un.org/search/promoting-action-on-the-commitments-of-the-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-pm-session-dialogue-1-migration-conference-marrakech-morocco-10-11-december-2018-/5977728363001/?term=2018-12-10&lan=english&cat=Migration2018&sort=date

 

You really come across as someone who knows what he's talking about. Really...

[nauseus]

The EU attended in Marrakech as "observers". The were no signatories.....because it is non-binding! But the EU have certainly been involved, invited or not. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to in that case:

 

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6417_en.htm

 

https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2018/2642(RSP)

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181210IPR21430/meps-strongly-welcome-the-global-compact-on-migration

 

 

 

[Forethat]

I'm going to disregard your invectives and false accusations (I am now reporting them).

 

If you read the resolution you will find that the resolution

 

1.  Strongly supports the objectives of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and the corresponding process for developing a global governance regime, for enhancing coordination on international migration, human mobility, large movements of refugees and protracted refugee situations, and for putting in place durable solutions and approaches to clearly outlining the importance of protecting the rights of refugees and migrants;

2.  Calls on the EU Member States to unite behind a single EU position and to actively defend and advance the negotiations on the important issue of the UN Global Compacts for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and on Refugees;

 

In black and white. It is not the result of the conference, no one ever said that. The resolution is a result on the joint work to author an agreement to strengthen migrants humanitarian situation. EU was part of that work.

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The EU attended in Marrakech as "observers". The were no signatories.....because it is non-binding! But the EU have certainly been involved, invited or not. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to in that case:

 

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6417_en.htm

 

https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2018/2642(RSP)

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181210IPR21430/meps-strongly-welcome-the-global-compact-on-migration

 

 

 

Correct. As an intergovernmental organisation the EU has a standing invite.

[puipuitom]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

As you said 'i'm sure most leave supporters voted for'. You don't know because the question on the referendum was not clear regarding exit options.

British voters were lied, swindled, doublecrossed and wrong informed by especially teh Brexit-leaders. Remind the "350 mln pounds per week for the NHS. 

But.. let them now votre for WHICH form of "Leave". All "remainers" to force out of the country or be executed , a no deal ( Boris - option) , the Canadian, Norway or Swiss deal, the may agfreement or... stop this suicide, revoke art 50 solution.

[Rimmer]

A personal attack has been removed

[puipuitom]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

So if we can't get a deal, which looks very likely, what would you do?

Same as the one, who leaves its sportsclub and cannot get what he still wants of that club: f... off.

And when commitments were made before, agreed by all members... simply pay your debts.

[puipuitom]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

So if we can't get a deal, which looks very likely, what would you do?

You mean: a deal which pass the HoC. Than OR lower your demands OR accept all what comes to you when you run away. OR let the people decide first.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

Same as the one, who leaves its sportsclub and cannot get what he still wants of that club: f... off.

And when commitments were made before, agreed by all members... simply pay your debts.

There will be no debts paid, the UK joined a golf club and the committee changed it to cage fighting without telling us.

[puipuitom]

4 hours ago, Forethat said:

Project reality?

 

You mean the food shortages? 

That there would be no medicine?

That planes would be grounded? 

The house price crash? 

That ½ a million will lose their jobs?

That the cost would be £4,300 to every home? 

Stock market collapse? 

Riots? 

No sandwiches?

That there’d be an outbreak of super gonorrhea?

The end of Western civilisation as we know it? 

 

You were mentioning something about "thick skulls" (not to mention "anyone capable of rational thought")?

The UK did not leaver yet.Secodn; youte some people + businesses already stored a LOT .

So, let's see the situation in.. Feb-March onwards. Who does not want to listen, has to feel.