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

[vogie]

25 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

I think it’s posted for the third time now this morning; Does someone have to print it on a red bus for everyone to understand?

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.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

I think it’s posted for the third time now this morning; Does someone have to print it on a red bus for everyone to understand?

Lose three points for repetition.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

It's been the law for hundreds of years, ever since the Uk was governed by parliamentary democracy.

 

Better still, you post a link that shows where YOU were told that the law had changed and that the referendum was now binding.

You have dodged my question...You cannot answer it...

Cameron TOLD the voters, the videos are out there, whatever the outcome of the referendum it will be implemented, now did he say that or not..?

 

If he did, why didn't folk like you point out on tele etc he was wrong in his statement...?

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute 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.

Why would that be hypocritical or duplicitous? 

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, transam said:

It did..?

Can you post a link where the voting populace were told the referendum will not be binding.. ?

Seems strange to me that at the time the mud sling-ers NEVER mentioned it, well I don't recall, perhaps you do, again, can you point me to where we were told. Now I don't want you to post a page from a UK law book, I want where the electorate were told...

Is it your argument that because you werent told about the law that it then is not the law?

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

There is again the same reaction of people confronted with undisputable evidence.

Bereft of any argument they desperately demand citations. All they do is reveal their lack on knowledge of the issue as a whole.

Brexiteers don't want to know anything, they just want their baseless rhetoric to be accepted as fact.

 

They hate anyone producing facts to counter their Brexiteer babble and usually condemn it as fake news and launch into vitriolic personal attacks on the poster.

 

I don't think they realise that this adolescent tactic just bolsters the remainer's argument. You can't teach stupid.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

You have dodged my question...You cannot answer it...

Cameron TOLD the voters, the videos are out there, whatever the outcome of the referendum it will be implemented, now did he say that or not..?

 

If he did, why didn't folk like you point out on tele etc he was wrong in his statement...?

Because he decided he wanted to have it binding. That is his decision. But thats not the law.

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

 

Cameron TOLD the voters, the videos are out there, whatever the outcome of the referendum it will be implemented, now did he say that or not..?

How is that relevant when the question was whether a referendum is legally binding or not? 

 

3 minutes ago, transam said:

If he did, why didn't folk like you point out on tele etc he was wrong in his statement...?

Why would you listen to “folk” rather than laws?

[vogie]

26 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Brexiteers don't want to know anything, they just want their baseless rhetoric to be accepted as fact.

 

They hate anyone producing facts to counter their Brexiteer babble and usually condemn it as fake news and launch into vitriolic personal attacks on the poster.

 

I don't think they realise that this adolescent tactic just bolsters the remainer's argument. You can't teach stupid.

From the man that quotes Hitler and uses right wing slogans, you really couldn't make this up.????????????????

[stephenterry]

16 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

The only thing May got right was that no deal was better than a bad deal. And be careful what you wish for in the next election. Labour governments have a nasty habit of destroying jobs and ramping up the national debt.

 

Under the current administration, despite Brexit uncertainty and dumb Remoaners endlessly rubbishing the economy, employment is at record levels and real wage growth at a two-year high - and still rising. 

 

Post Brexit, the forecast is for Britain to overhaul France and boom as Europe's second largest economy after Germany. This obviously won't happen if Corbyn gets the chance to impose his mooted four-day week and other utopian socialist nonsense.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/28/britains-economy-set-boom-become-largest-europe-brexit/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget/

 

 

 

 

The 'bad' deal honoured the referendum vote. That's factual. It's tough tittie if leavers (and remainers) don't like it - neither did the DUP or rebel ERG tories who prevented the deal passing through parliament. That's also factual. 

 

I seriously believe you are deluded in thinking that a no-deal would bring about your above benefits because the consequences would bring about far more downsides in the coming years, than future estimated aspirations of economy outturns. Anticipated trade deals take years to implement. The Telegraph article posted in February is long out of date with the failure of exiting the EU in March.

 

As you said, be careful what you wish for. 

 

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

Brexiteers don't want to know anything, they just want their baseless rhetoric to be accepted as fact.

 

They hate anyone producing facts to counter their Brexiteer babble and usually condemn it as fake news and launch into vitriolic personal attacks on the poster.

 

I don't think they realise that this adolescent tactic just bolsters the remainer's argument. You can't teach stupid.

And your "teach stupid" slur (above) isn't adolescent? If you were as smart as you think you are, you might even be able to argue.

[transam]

Just now, Sujo said:

Is it your argument that because you werent told about the law that it then is not the law?

Certainly not, my point is that if voters are not aware of political law then it should have been brought up at the time as being wrong by those who do, such as the opposition party or law makers...Why wasn't it...?

 

The opposition and law makers are out in force at the mo trying to squash the peoples vote...They didn't do it after Camerons speech to the voters..

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Certainly not, my point is that if voters are not aware of political law then it should have been brought up at the time as being wrong by those who do, such as the opposition party or law makers...Why wasn't it...?

It was brought up. It was published well before the referendum. 

 

 

[transam]

6 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Brexiteers don't want to know anything, they just want their baseless rhetoric to be accepted as fact.

 

They hate anyone producing facts to counter their Brexiteer babble and usually condemn it as fake news and launch into vitriolic personal attacks on the poster.

 

I don't think they realise that this adolescent tactic just bolsters the remainer's argument. You can't teach stupid.

Total rubbish......

 

Personal attacks, you just called me stupid...Pot/kettle...????

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

You have dodged my question...You cannot answer it...

Cameron TOLD the voters, the videos are out there, whatever the outcome of the referendum it will be implemented, now did he say that or not..?

 

If he did, why didn't folk like you point out on tele etc he was wrong in his statement...?

It has been pointed out to you in graphic detal by me in my posts #486, #506 and #509 in this thread and fully explained why Cameron promised the voters that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented, note that he never used the word "binding".

 

However, you chose to ignore the facts (see my post #517) and continuously repeat your pointless prattle.

[transam]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

It was brought up. It was published well before the referendum. 

 

 

Show me.....?

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Show me.....?

Posting it for the fifth time now. If it’s too much text, pay particular attention to the yellow highlights. 

[transam]

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

It has been pointed out to you in graphic detal by me in my posts #486, #506 and #509 in this thread and fully explained why Cameron promised the voters that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented, note that he never used the word "binding".

 

However, you chose to ignore the facts (see my post #517) and continuously repeat your pointless prattle.

The referendum would be implemented....THANK YOU....

 

But you want to argue over a word that to most means the same thing...I hope your barrel isn't to deep.....

[transam]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

Posting it for the fifth time now. If it’s too much text, pay particular attention to the yellow highlights. 

Did the PM Cameron tell the populace the result of the referendum would be implemented....Yes or No....?

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

The referendum would be implemented....THANK YOU....

What part of “it does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the result of the referendum (...) The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of the referendum to be implemented” do you not understand?

 

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, transam said:

The referendum would be implemented....THANK YOU....

 

But you want to argue over a word that to most means the same thing...I hope your barrel isn't to deep.....

"Promise" and "binding" are two totally different things. "promise" is a personal undertaking with no standing in law. "binding" is an undertaking that is enforcable by law. Buy a dictionary.

[cleopatra2]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Show me.....?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament

 

 

The referendum not binding before the date of referendum

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Did the PM Cameron tell the populace the result of the referendum would be implemented....Yes or No....?

Did he say that it would be binding, yes or no?

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Did the PM Cameron tell the populace the result of the referendum would be implemented....Yes or No....?

The question was whether the referendum was legally binding or not. Let’s stay on topic. 

[stephenterry]

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

My mind is open.

 

Open to trading with the whole world, not just a small part of it.

Open to controlling our fishing waters.

Open to controlled immigration based on the needs of the country, not the country that issued the passport.

Open to setting our own laws.

Open to spending tax payers money on the UK, not on EU net beneficiaries.

Open to respecting the result of the democratic referendum.

Open to being able to democratically select/remove who runs the country, not leaving it to unelected EU officials.

 

If you need a comfort blanket that's fine, I have faith in the UK to succeed without being tied to the EU's apron strings.

 

Your mind might be open but your statements are not factual. And I'm fed-up having to explain how wrong you are.

The UK has control over all of these. Just google them. For example, the UK controls 98% of its expenditure, it controls its own laws, it has as many trade deals in place outside the EU that would last a lifetime etc. etc. 

And controls how it DECIDES to implement the referendum, and who it appoints as a government. 

 

So all in all, your statements indicate a close-minded or ill-informed mentality, sorry.

 

 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

"Promise" and "binding" are two totally different things. "promise" is a personal undertaking with no standing in law. "binding" is an undertaking that is enforcable by law. Buy a dictionary.

Where on earth has the word "promise" come from....?

 

Get a grip man...????

 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

29 minutes ago, transam said:

Where on earth has the word "promise" come from....?

What a politician says is a promise. What the law says is legally binding. Got it? 

 

29 minutes ago, transam said:

 

Get a grip man...????

Dito. 

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

From the man that quotes Hitler and uses right wing slogans, you really couldn't make this up.????????????????

I was quoting Cummings using Hitlers right wing slogans. You really do make it up.

 

Another good example of attacking the poster, not the post.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, oldhippy said:

What's the relevance, unless you are a racist?

 

Being that you are not ellis, it has nothing to do with you.

 

Are you calling me a racist?

[sanemax]

13 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The question was whether the referendum was legally binding or not. Let’s stay on topic. 

Doesnt really matter either way , Remainers are just looking for a reason to invalidate the vote .

  They lost the vote and are now looking for a technicality to invalidate the vote