UK's worst-case no-deal Brexit plan warns of food shortages, public disorder

[7by7]

19 hours ago, kingdong said:

19 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

You must hate it there in Thailand; being surrounded by all those brown people!

On the contrary,I love those little Brown bar girls and I voted brexit

 

My comment was not directed at nor about you, neither was it directed at or about Brexiteers in general. 

 

It was directed at @zorrow424 as a direct response to yet another of his many racist posts; as my quote of said post makes clear.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Mike Teavee said:

I would put you on ignore but occasionally you come up with some (music) classics that I'd forgotten about that makes it worth it... 

 

Just joshing about the ignore, but serious about the old time music fella ????  

 

 

Must confess I have been a bit absent from music stuff here this year, probably cos I have had a lot going on...Plus, I can't remember the last time I sang a few songs. Many folk have popped there clogs, moved away, nothing stays the same....????

[Mike Teavee]

14 minutes ago, transam said:

Must confess I have been a bit absent from music stuff here this year, probably cos I have had a lot going on...Plus, I can't remember the last time I sang a few songs. Many folk have popped there clogs, moved away, nothing stays the same....????

I want to give a like (because I did like your post) but commiserations mate... hope you & family are doing well... 

 

& I hope you're back on song soon ???? 

 

<deleted> Brexit, let's enjoy the weekend at least... 

 

 

[7by7]

18 hours ago, vogie said:

19 hours ago, Bruntoid said:

I think you do yes - are you condoning Zorrows racism then ?

 

TVF clearly are 

What I'm saying is that "I've never seen so many white people in one place" and I don't condone racism in any form, but I think the EU could be a little more obliging than monochrome, don't you.????

 

So you approve of tokenism, then?

[kingdong]

Artical 50 invoked brexi t to follow as voted for by majority of.mps,what's so hard to understand?

[7by7]

18 hours ago, kingdong said:

19 hours ago, oldhippy said:

U

And the composer Elmore was not of pure British stock.....

And neither would it appear are 99% of the remainers

 

Unless your DNA is 100% Celt, neither are you nor any other Brexiteer!

 

Even if you are 100% Celt, there is archeological evidence that were modern human inhabitants of these islands before the Celts.

[kingdong]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

My comment was not directed at nor about you, neither was it directed at or about Brexiteers in general. 

 

It was directed at @zorrow424 as a direct response to yet another of his many racist posts; as my quote of said post makes clear.

oh,you played the racecard

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

Artical 50 invoked brexi t to follow as voted for by majority of.mps,what's so hard to understand?

Close but no cigar. Article 50 fired the starting gun for Brexit negotiations. From that point on the agenda was dictated by Article 50 itself.

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

oh,you played the racecard

And rightly so.

[Mike Teavee]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

oh,you played the racecard

Oh come on, some of @zorrow424 posts have been aggressively racist which is ironic considering we are on a forum dedicated to Thailand

 

I do have to laugh though as I remember being sat in a "Diversity Class" at work where they talked about ethnic minorities... 

 

There's me, about 10-12 indians & a couple of local Singaporeans & the subject of "Ethnic Minority" came up and one of the Indian's said I couldn't be an Ethnic Minority because I was White... 

 

 

Trust me, I am most definitely an Ethnic Minority in Singapore (Caucasians (of all colours) make up approx 3% of the Singapore population, Indians approx 25%) & in Changi Business Park, I'm an endangered species (90%+ Indians).

 

[7by7]

15 hours ago, kingdong said:

No deal was not mentioned in the 2016 binding referendum,obviously we all want a good deal,but can you see the European  union giving us one with the current  carry on?not a hope in hell,the very mob whingeing they want a good deal,have made sure Boris is in no position to negotiate one

 

The 2016 referendum was not legally binding. Good job it wasn't as far as Brexiteers are concerned because, as the High Court ruled, had it been then the illegal activities of Vote.Leave and other leave campaigners would have meant the result was null and void.

 

We had a deal, Parliament voted it out.

 

Everyone who has been paying any attention at all knows that any deal Boris negotiates will be virtually identical to May's deal with a few tweaks to make him look like the UK's saviour.

 

Now that he's achieved his long term aim of getting into No. 10 his mates Rees-Mogg with his ERG and others Tories who voted against May rather than her deal will back him and it will get through Parliament; provided the 21 he's sacked put country before politics, which I think they will.

[7by7]

14 hours ago, sanemax said:

As long as you promise to accept the result this time , even if you lose again .

  Would you promise to definitely accept the result of a new referendum ?

Win or lose; yes.

 

Provided it was made legally binding and the campaigns run fairly and legally without the illegal funding, targeting texting and other underhand tricks used by Cummins and others last time.

 

14 hours ago, sanemax said:

Also , if Remain did win , that would make the score 1-1 and there would need to be a decider

 

No, the score is currently 1-1. This final, legally binding referendum would make it 2-1, whatever the result.

[7by7]

10 hours ago, kingdong said:

Cameron stated the results would be HONOURED obviously a totally alien concept to the remainers.

 You may not have noticed, but Cameron is not the Prime Minister anymore.

 

Also, anything any PM promises has to be approved by Parliament; and we all know what's happened there!

[kingdong]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You may not have noticed, but Cameron is not the Prime Minister anymore.

 

Also, anything any PM promises has to be approved by Parliament; and we all know what's happEned there

Cameron was pm at the time of the referendum.And parliament approved his "promise" by invoking article 50

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, wilcopops said:

Clear evidence of a Brexiteer not understanding democracy and then confusing it with mob rule.

Clear evidence of a remainer not understanding that a democratic referendum vote is not mob rule.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, vogie said:

But it is you that doesn't understand, posters that shout from the top of a high building that referendums are advisory, non binding and illegal are the same posters that are crying out for another referendum, even for you that must seem quite strange or even slightly duplicitous, at best hypocritical.

 We want a referendum which offers us the choice between

1. leave with the negotiated deal, which is fully and completely explained;
2. leave with no deal, with the consequences, short and long term, of that fully explained;
3. remain, a=gain with the consequences fully explained.

These choices in a type of single transferable vote with voters marking their first and second choice on the ballot paper. If no option receives at least  50% plus 1 of the first choices, the first choice with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choices on those papers allocated accordingly.

 

Of course, to be acceptable to both sides this referendum must be

• fair, without the illegal tactics employed last time;
• legally binding, with it made clear that it is;
• final, with both sides agreeing to accept and act upon the result, whatever it may be.

 

We want all this because for the last 3 years MPs have played party politics and put the personal ambitions of themselves and their friends ahead of what is best for the country. So take the decision out of their hands and give it to the people.

 

Why are so many Brexiteers afraid of that?

Edited September 14, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[Loiner]

Brexit has cost the British economy £66 billion since the referendum,  -   Credit ratings agency Standard and Poor suggested that since the June 2016 vote, 3% has been shaved off GDP.
 
p>

Money well spent really, when we are finally out. If Remainers hadn’t tried to usurp the whole process we might have saved a few bob.

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Win or lose; yes.

 

Provided it was made legally binding and the campaigns run fairly and legally without the illegal funding, targeting texting and other underhand tricks used by Cummins and others last time.

 

 

No, the score is currently 1-1. This final, legally binding referendum would make it 2-1, whatever the result.

Wrong. There was never a referendum on EU membership. There should have been one but there wasn't.

[Mike Teavee]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Wrong. There was never a referendum on EU membership. There should have been one but there wasn't.

Confused... what was this then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Mike Teavee

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 We want a referendum which offers us the choice between

1. leave with the negotiated deal, which is fully and completely explained;
2. leave with no deal, with the consequences, short and long term, of that fully explained;
3. remain, a=gain with the consequences fully explained.

These choices in a type of single transferable vote with voters marking their first and second choice on the ballot paper. If no option receives at least  50% plus 1 of the first choices, the first choice with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choices on those papers allocated accordingly.

 

Of course, to be acceptable to both sides this referendum must be

• fair, without the illegal tactics employed last time;
• legally binding, with it made clear that it is;
• final, with both sides agreeing to accept and act upon the result, whatever it may be.

 

Why are so many Brexiteers afraid of that?

You don't want to rerun the referendum. You want a different one entirely. Just because you lost. And now you are suddenly in favour of losers consent. Away with you!

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

You don't want to rerun the referendum. You want a different one entirely. Just because you lost. And now you are suddenly in favour of losers consent. Away with you!

What makes you think that we weren't in favour of it before? We were never offered it.

[kingdong]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Why are so many Brexiteers afraid of that?

They,'re not,Boris offered the remainers a general election and they bottled it.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Confused... what was this then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum 

 

It was the EEC. Things have changed. There should have been a referendum pre 1992 (Maastricht) but no.

 

The linked article makes the case including this remark: There is a clear constitutional rationale for requiring a referendum in such circumstances. MPs are entrusted by the electorate with legislative power, but they are given no authority to transfer that power. That authority requires a specific mandate from the people.

 

Elected MPs are lent the power to govern but they not entitled to pass on that power to anyone else.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-the-people-should-have-a-vote-on-maastricht-the-house-of-lords-must-uphold-democracy-and-insist-1490346.html

[kingdong]

7 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

What makes you think that we weren't in favour of it before? We were never offered it.

But late to be whingeing about it now,why didn,t you point out all your fine arguments at the time,i.e before the 2016 referendum?

[7by7]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

"what I am saying, and you don't seem to be listening is that many on here want another referendum, which you say is non binding,"

No. What many on here are saying is there should be a new, binding referendum. The referendum 3 years ago was not.

Referendums are non binding so you cannot have a binding referendum without changing legislation,

 

UK referendums are not legally binding as a rule. But all UK referendums require parliament to legislate for them to happen, and in that legislation Parliament can decide to make the result legally binding. As they did in the 2011 referendum on changing the electoral system to alternative vote, where the relevant legislation obligated the government to change the law to reflect a “yes” vote had that occurred.

 

5 hours ago, vogie said:

and if you change legislation there is nothing to prevent our duplicitious parliament to reverse it, so there would be no point in having something that isn't MP proof.

 

Based upon their performance over the last 9 months or so, especially that of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the ERG, you may be right. Parliament is after all sovereign and can reverse any and all previous legislation if it wills it.

 

But you remark "there would be no point in having something that isn't MP proof" applies equally to any and all legislation; in which case what? No parliament at all?

 

5 hours ago, vogie said:

We have had our referendum and I suspect that most of the country is happy with it, only a few bad losers seem to be despondent about the result.

 

I strongly dispute that; but to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, I would say that, wouldn't I!

 

5 hours ago, vogie said:

It does not matter whether the referendum was binding or non binding, it was only an advisory referendum where parliament chose to act on that advice, this is irrefutable.

Except Parliament hasn't acted on that advice; despite having there years in which to do so.

 

Parliament can't make a decision; so let the people do so. If your "I suspect that most of the country is happy with it, only a few bad losers seem to be despondent about the result" comment is correct, then leave is sure to win again.

 

Or do you fear that you are wrong?

[welovesundaysatspace]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You don't want to rerun the referendum. You want a different one entirely. Just because you lost. And now you are suddenly in favour of losers consent. Away with you!

I agree. It would be a pity if this entertaining <deleted>show came to an end. Please keep it going; I like my daily dose of Brexiteer slapstick. Maybe @evadgib could post some armchair analysis again why the UK has left already? 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

My comment was not directed at nor about you, neither was it directed at or about Brexiteers in general. 

 

It was directed at @zorrow424 as a direct response to yet another of his many racist posts; as my quote of said post makes clear.

oh,you played the racecard

 

Have you read any of his posts, let alone the one in question?

 

But let's be fair; he doesn't just post hate about black and brown people, he hates the Irish, too.

 

How he get's away with it is a mystery.

[Mike Teavee]

So you're ok to leave with May's Dea?

 

I am if you are

[welovesundaysatspace]

14 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Boris offered the remainers a general election

...because he and all other brexiteers know they would lose a referendum ???? 

 

14 minutes ago, kingdong said:

and they bottled it.

Here, have some:

 

[7by7]

37 minutes ago, kingdong said:

47 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You may not have noticed, but Cameron is not the Prime Minister anymore.

 

Also, anything any PM promises has to be approved by Parliament; and we all know what's happEned there

Cameron was pm at the time of the referendum.And parliament approved his "promise" by invoking article 50

 And what has parliament done since?

 

Nothing; so let us, the people decide.

 

Why are you running scared of that?