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

[welovesundaysatspace]

41 minutes ago, kingdong said:

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

Parliament didn’t approve his promise. 

[Mike Teavee]

31 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!

Again... Will you accept leaving with the "Deal" PM May agreed?

 

If so, then I accept, no need for a referendum... any claims of BRINO means you're disagreeing with yourself... 

 

[7by7]

35 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

 Everything which has happened re the EU was known about in 1975.

 

Even The Torygraph acknowledges that: No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into

[Mike Teavee]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

I'm still confused... 

 

Was there or was there not a referendum on joining a European Community??? 

 

 

How that community has changed since then may be due a vote of should we stay but was there or was there not a vote of whether we should join in the 1st place... 

 

 

 

[7by7]

34 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've never said I want to rerun the 2016 referendum; I want a new, final, legally binding referendum along the lines described.

 

Why are you so afraid of taking the decision away from MPs you have, yourself, described as duplicitous, and giving we, the people, the final, legally binding decision on our future?

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I've never said I want to rerun the 2016 referendum; I want a new, final, legally binding referendum along the lines described.

 

Why are you so afraid of taking the decision away from MPs you have, yourself, described as duplicitous, and giving we, the people, the final, legally binding decision on our future?

They know they would lose in a landslide now as people are aware of all the lies and false promises and cannot be deceived anymore. 

[kingdong]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

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.

Free speech?

[7by7]

31 minutes ago, kingdong said:

48 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.

 

Didn't bottle it, just stopped Johnson from changing the date to frustrate Parliament; just as he did with his prorogation.

 

However, a general election is not the same as a referendum.

 

I posted the following elsewhere, but it bears repeating here.

 

Most people in a general election vote along party lines; I suspect many don't even read manifestos or watch PPBs.

 

My constituency is a prime example of this. Remain won here in the referendum, but our MP is a Brexiteer. However, this is an ultra safe Tory seat; a donkey would win if it wore a blue rosette! 

 

So, as with every general election, the result would depend upon the marginals.

 

Would that give any one party a majority in Parliament? Well it does so more often than not.

 

Would that party's Brexit policy match that of the majority of voters? Doubtful. The last time the winning party had more than 50% of the vote was 1931.

(source)

 

Indeed, the party with the most votes is not always the party which wins the most seats. From that same briefing paper

Quote

The highest share of the vote received by Labour in a general election was 48.8% in 1951, when the Conservatives won the most seats despite polling fewer votes.

 

In conclusion, a general election is not the most democratic way of giving the choice back to the people as it could easily mean the party with the most seats did not get the most votes.

 

 

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

Didn't bottle it, just stopped Johnson from changing the date to frustrate Parliament; just as he did with his prorogation.

 

However, a general election is not the same as a referendum.

 

I posted the following elsewhere, but it bears repeating here.

 

Most people in a general election vote along party lines; I suspect many don't even read manifestos or watch PPBs.

 

My constituency is a prime example of this. Remain won here in the referendum, but our MP is a Brexiteer. However, this is an ultra safe Tory seat; a donkey would win if it wore a blue rosette! 

 

So, as with every general election, the result would depend upon the marginals.

 

Would that give any one party a majority in Parliament? Well it does so more often than not.

 

Would that party's Brexit policy match that of the majority of voters? Doubtful. The last time the winning party had more than 50% of the vote was 1931.

(source)

 

Indeed, the party with the most votes is not always the party which wins the most seats. From that same briefing paper

 

In conclusion, a general election is not the most democratic way of giving the choice back to the people as it could easily mean the party with the most seats did not get the most votes.

 

 

According to remain it must be better than a " non binding "referendum,they bottled it.

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, kingdong said:

27 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

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.

Free speech?

 

Forum rules, which we all agreed to abide by when we first joined.

 

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

(My emphasis)

 

 

 

[kingdong]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

In conclusion, a general election is not the most democratic way of giving the choice back to the people as it could easily mean the party with the most seats did not get the most votes.

 

 

So a binding referendum is not democratic,nor is a general election?????????

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, kingdong said:

According to remain it must be better than a " non binding "referendum,they bottled it.

 

9 minutes ago, kingdong said:

So a binding referendum is not democratic,nor is a general election?????????

 

I have already explained why a referendum is better deciding a single issue than a general election. 

 

I have also explained why MPs stopped Johnson from getting his election when he wanted it.

 

Now you explain why you are afraid of a final, legally binding referendum.

 

 

[kingdong]

40 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Everything which has happened re the EU was known about in 1975.

 

Even The Torygraph acknowledges that: No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into

Actually it wasn,t the" eu" in 1975 it was the common market,simply for trade agreements amongst the wealthiest country's in europe.now it's morphed into something far beyond that,how many countries in it now?how many are in massive debt?let's face it, it's finished now and we should follow the habits of rats and get off a sinking ship before it takes us down with it.if I was a remaine r I would personally be making plans to settle in the eu,haven,t seem much evidence of that,yet we,ve got 3 million eu citizens living in the uk,what do,'es that tell you?

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

I have already explained why a referendum is better deciding a single issue than a general election. 

 

I have also explained why MPs stopped Johnson from getting his election when he wanted it.

 

Now you explain why you are afraid of a final, legally binding referendum.

 

 

Like you were in 2016

[kingdong]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

I have already explained why a referendum is better deciding a single issue than a general election. 

 

I have also explained why MPs stopped Johnson from getting his election when he wanted it.

 

Now you explain why you are afraid of a final, legally binding referendum.

 

 

Because remain wouldn,t respect the last legally binding referendum.as state d before why didn,t you put up your arguments before the 2016 referendum instead of clutching at straws now?

[Slip]

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Because remain wouldn,t respect the last legally binding referendum.as state d before why didn,t you put up your arguments before the 2016 referendum instead of clutching at straws now?

And has been explained to you dozens of times now the last referendum was not legally binding. 

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

And has been explained to you dozens of times now the last referendum was not legally binding. 

Why?because you say it wasn.t?

[Slip]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

Why?because you say it wasn.t?

No, because it is a matter of fact not opinion.  Responses like this yours here is why leavers get called stupid.  I am happy to allow that not all are, but you really don't help the cause.  If you can't accept what has been shown to you so many times here go and look it up yourself.

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

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?

I did.

[vogie]

41 minutes ago, Slip said:

And has been explained to you dozens of times now the last referendum was not legally binding. 

If your arguements were a horse they would shoot it, it has been flogged to death.

[yogi100]

On 9/12/2019 at 1:28 AM, Estrada said:

63% did not vote to leave.

Don't you mean 73% did not to leave if 27% did vote to leave.

 

Are you purposefully trying to confuse the thick Braxiteers.

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

If your arguements were a horse they would shoot it, it has been flogged to death.

His arguments would have romped home by a mile against the Brexit argument (none, just rhetoric.)

 

 

[7by7]

47 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Actually it wasn,t the" eu" in 1975 it was the common market,simply for trade agreements amongst the wealthiest country's in europe.now it's morphed into something far beyond that,how many countries in it now?how many are in massive debt?let's face it, it's finished now and we should follow the habits of rats and get off a sinking ship before it takes us down with it.if I was a remaine r I would personally be making plans to settle in the eu,haven,t seem much evidence of that,yet we,ve got 3 million eu citizens living in the uk,what do,'es that tell you?

 

The EEC became the EU in 1993 as a result of the Maastricht treaty; but it was always a goal of the community going back to the pre EEC ECSC in the 1950s.

 

Even Churchill in his 1948 Zurich speech envisaged what he called a United States of Europe; though no one wants to go that far! Even if they did, it would take the unanimous agreement of all member states.

 

As the Telegraph article makes clear, we knew all that when we joined in 1973, we knew all that when we voted to remain in 1975.

 

There are 3 million plus EEA, not just EU, nationals living in the UK for the same reason there are 1.8 million British nationals living in other EU/EEA states. In order to exercise a treaty right; that tells me that FoM is popular amongst Brits as well as others. What does it tell you?

 

Despite the slurs poured upon us by many Brexiteers, Remainers are patriotic; we want what's best for our country. The only difference between you and I as far as EU membership is concerned is that we disagree on what that is.

 

I hope that you are not serious in suggesting that British citizens who disagree with you should leave the country (be forced to leave, perhaps?). Such sentiments reminds me of Stalin and his gulags!

[7by7]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

I have already explained why a referendum is better deciding a single issue than a general election. 

 

I have also explained why MPs stopped Johnson from getting his election when he wanted it.

 

Now you explain why you are afraid of a final, legally binding referendum.

 

 

Like you were in 2016

 I wasn't afraid of the 2016 referendum.

 

I at first accepted the result; go back to my posts at the time on the subject if you don't believe me.

 

I have explained many times why I have changed that view and now want a final, legally binding referendum.

 

Now, instead of yet again evading the question, will you answer it?

[Joinaman]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 I wasn't afraid of the 2016 referendum.

 

I at first accepted the result; go back to my posts at the time on the subject if you don't believe me.

 

I have explained many times why I have changed that view and now want a final, legally binding referendum.

 

Now, instead of yet again evading the question, will you answer it?

can provide any true facts to back up your opinions now

Cost of Leaving, costs of remaining

Job losses, job gains

How the Lisbon treaty will impact on the UK if we remain

Say for simplicity, lets make it 5 years, so not to complicate it and not overwork your small brain

Just a few simple questions that somehow, remainers seem unable to answer, while telling us how bad leaving will be

And they say the Leavers are stupid ??

[7by7]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Now you explain why you are afraid of a final, legally binding referendum.

 

 

Because remain wouldn,t respect the last legally binding referendum.as state d before why didn,t you put up your arguments before the 2016 referendum instead of clutching at straws now?

 As proven I don't know how many times, the 2016 referendum was not legally binding; it was advisory.

 

Despite that, prior to the 2016 referendum and even for a while afterwards we all thought Parliament would abide by it; but they haven't. If they had, we would have left the EU on the 29th March.

 

Parliament can't or won't make the decision, so give that decision to us, the people in a final, legally binding referendum. Legally binding so it's result will have to be implemented.

 

Why are you afraid of that?

 

 

[wilcopops]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

Before you accuse others of not understanding ,understand your own words . Look up the word "mob rule"

QED - As said I think Brexiteers confuse democracy with mob rule. Unlike you, I don't need to google or dictionary everything as I already know not just a dictionary definition but its usage in modern English and the history of the expression.

[wilcopops]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The EEC became the EU in 1993 as a result of the Maastricht treaty; but it was always a goal of the community going back to the pre EEC ECSC in the 1950s.

 

Even Churchill in his 1948 Zurich speech envisaged what he called a United States of Europe; though no one wants to go that far! Even if they did, it would take the unanimous agreement of all member states.

 

As the Telegraph article makes clear, we knew all that when we joined in 1973, we knew all that when we voted to remain in 1975.

 

There are 3 million plus EEA, not just EU, nationals living in the UK for the same reason there are 1.8 million British nationals living in other EU/EEA states. In order to exercise a treaty right; that tells me that FoM is popular amongst Brits as well as others. What does it tell you?

 

Despite the slurs poured upon us by many Brexiteers, Remainers are patriotic; we want what's best for our country. The only difference between you and I as far as EU membership is concerned is that we disagree on what that is.

 

I hope that you are not serious in suggesting that British citizens who disagree with you should leave the country (be forced to leave, perhaps?). Such sentiments reminds me of Stalin and his gulags!

It is the gullibility exhibited by Brexiteers that has enables the far right to gain so much power and influence in the UK - they have no idea what a slippery slope they are embarking on. The rest of the world can see though....

[7by7]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

1 hour ago, Slip said:

And has been explained to you dozens of times now the last referendum was not legally binding. 

Why?because you say it wasn.t?

 

Once more; in the UK Parliament has to pass legislation for a referendum to be held. In that legislation Parliament could, if it wished, make the result legally binding, but unless they do the default position is that the result is advisory.

 

Parliament did not make the 2016 referendum legally binding, therefore it was advisory.

 

Got it now?

[7by7]

28 minutes ago, vogie said:

1 hour ago, Slip said:

And has been explained to you dozens of times now the last referendum was not legally binding. 

If your arguements were a horse they would shoot it, it has been flogged to death.

 if certain Brexiteers like @kingdong accepted facts instead of continuously denying them, then we would not have to keep repeating those facts.!

 

The 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. That is a fact.