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

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I am not referring to what the constitution says. 

Maybe brexiteers should do that more often before going on rants about their democratic rights...

[transam]

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Maybe brexiteers should do that more often before going on rants about their democratic rights...

Rant's, you question rant's...?...55555

 

Go look in your "camp" posts sunbeam....????

[Mike Teavee]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I see. But May's deal is a BRINO from hell. Not simply or really leaving at all. 

 

And remainers can't say that nobody voted for a no-deal Brexit either. How would they know?

And some of us believe that a No-Deal Brexit would be Brexit from hell... 

 

You can see how "Leave" should have been more clearly defined at the time so people could have voted for what they wanted when they said Leave 

 

So care to share what you think Leave should be?

[wilcopops]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

You forgot to mention the latest one. Let me add that one for you. Not advisory; legally binding ???? 

So binding they needed 2? - They can be cancelled at any time by parliament - and soon will be.

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 minutes ago, transam said:

Rant's, you question rant's...?...55555

 

Go look in your "camp" posts sunbeam....????

My “camp”? Look, it’s fine that you’re dividing your country. But that doesn’t mean that Johnny Foreigner living in Thailand belongs to a camp ????

 

 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

My “camp”? Look, it’s fine that you’re dividing your country. But that doesn’t mean that Johnny Foreigner living in Thailand belongs to a camp ????

 

 

Sunbeam, MP's are the ones dividing the UK, they are the ones NOT delivering the will of the majority...

 

PS..Any of us living in LOS has nothing to do with the topic...

[nauseus]

42 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Maybe brexiteers should do that more often before going on rants about their democratic rights...

No ranting except from you. Maybe you should read the sub-string, which was for Mike's information, not for you at all.

[nauseus]

35 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

And some of us believe that a No-Deal Brexit would be Brexit from hell... 

 

You can see how "Leave" should have been more clearly defined at the time so people could have voted for what they wanted when they said Leave 

 

So care to share what you think Leave should be?

I know that. But why does it have to be so hellish? You need to ask the EU to answer that one.

 

The word "leave" can be simply defined. Leaving the tangled mesh that the EU has evidently become is not such a simple matter and that is what everyone can see now. Article 50 allows any member to leave the EU but it doesn't define "leave" either. 

 

I think that the leave choice on the ballot paper meant and should mean leaving the EU in all respects. 

[tebee]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I know that. But why does it have to be so hellish? You need to ask the EU to answer that one.

 

The word "leave" can be simply defined. Leaving the tangled mesh that the EU has evidently become is not such a simple matter and that is what everyone can see now. Article 50 allows any member to leave the EU but it doesn't define "leave" either. 

 

I think that the leave choice on the ballot paper meant and should mean leaving the EU in all respects. 

So why must we rush out now, without knowing what we want instead of having a serious discussion about leaving  and what it really meant and the consequences of each version of leave.

 

May I remind you  we got stuck on the present course to chaos when May conjured up her red lines out of thin air and invoked art 50 without any idea of where we were going.  

[welovesundaysatspace]

37 minutes ago, transam said:

Sunbeam, MP's are the ones dividing the UK, they are the ones NOT delivering the will of the majority...

MPs are only in the picture because of something called “Brexit” ???? Anyway, it doesn’t matter, the result is the same, keep wrecking your country, if that’s how you wanna show the EU your middle finger. ???? 

 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

MPs are only in the picture because of something called “Brexit” ???? Anyway, it doesn’t matter, the result is the same, keep wrecking your country, if that’s how you wanna show the EU your middle finger. ???? 

 

That is a very strange post that does not deserve a reply...

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

No ranting except from you. Maybe you should read the sub-string, which was for Mike's information, not for you at all.

Then you should have sent him a PM not posted it in an open forum. You do understand the concept of an open forum, don't you?

[CaptainNemo]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Regarding the rant, see Slip's answer.

 

I have not dodged any question, a new referendum should be legally binding, therewith ending any questions about a new referendum.

Can you name a referendum in UK history that has been legally binding? Wasn't all that Gina Miller litigation aimed at asserting Parliament's supremacy over any referendum?

More to the point, if an attempt is made to make another referendum and one that is binding, it is almost certain to face a successful challenge in the courts, which will upend that notion of "should be".

 

The question you appeared to dodge was this:

If we have a second referendum to confirm our confirming that we want to leave, then it's unbalanced.

How do you reconcile that?

 

...one vote to join, then two votes to leave?

 

Do you get my point? Why is that reasonable or fair?

Would you expect two referendums to decide on joining or rejoining?

 

I would appreciate a response to the above.

 

 

 

As for the rest, these were semi-rhetorical, but I don't see why you can't respond to them.

Remainers should try to see Brexiteers not as a horde of orcs, but as people who they need to convince with facts and reason, because in the end, the country needs to be majority reconciled after Brexit.

 

are you able to describe anything specific about what you care about in terms of the imagined effects of Brexit on the British economy, or is just personal frustration with losing a benefit that affects you personally?

Why should it be a binding referendum?

Shouldn't parliament be sovereign?

Do you think the 2016 referendum should have been binding?

Do you think a simple majority is enough? Or do you want a higher threshold?

[CaptainNemo]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

So why must we rush out now, without knowing what we want instead of having a serious discussion about leaving  and what it really meant and the consequences of each version of leave.

 

May I remind you  we got stuck on the present course to chaos when May conjured up her red lines out of thin air and invoked art 50 without any idea of where we were going.  

We do know what we want, we've been waiting to leave for the last 3 years (or more).

(I've been waiting to leave the EU since 1992, but that's by the by).

Mrs May is not really representative of the Brexit movement that she was never a part of.

Why the rush now? Well, the EU and China have serious economic risks on the horizon.

 

I want what precisely what Mrs Merkel says that she fears, a globally-facing outward-looking, giant Singapore/Switzerland off the coast of the European continent, with lower corporate and personal tax; low barriers to foreign trade and investment; a smaller state with more personal responsibility, and things such as effectively compulsory private health insurance (like in some European countries) and effectively compulsory voting (like in Australia). I would like to see closer ties and friendly visa policies towards Anglosphere nations of the world, with the Commonwealth ones: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as a priority, as well as the USA and Ireland (we have a customs and visa relationship with Ireland that long predates any European organisation). I would like to see a loosening of controls on free speech, freeing of the national curriculum in schools so that kids can learn more advanced things at younger ages, and some juicy FTAs with growing economies of Asia, including a nice friendly Amity treaty with Thailand to give British people special benefits and relaxed visa requirements (like the Anglo-Siam treaty of 1855) in Thailand, and also the same with Burma, Malaysia, and Singapore. I'd like to see all the urban sinkholes infested with many gerrymandered small Labour constituencies have their constituency borders reformed, and for these places to become special economic zones like Shenzhen. I'd like to abolish the Licence Fee, and privatise the BBC and the NHS, or at least make it no longer free at the point of use. Oh, and have new laws to recall the speaker and to force parliament to hold a general election as is needed right now.

...and a bonfire of all the thousands of laws introduced by New Labour and the EU. How's that for a start?

[Mike Teavee]

16 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

Can you name a referendum in UK history that has been legally binding?

Yes... 

 

A referendum can be legally binding if legislation is put in place to make it so BEFORE it is held... 

 

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

 

Is the EU referendum legally binding?

The simple answer to the question as to whether the EU referendum is legally binding is “no”. In theory, in the event of a vote to leave the EU, David Cameron, who opposes Brexit, could decide to ignore the will of the people and put the question to MPs banking on a majority deciding to remain.

 

This is because parliament is sovereign and referendums are generally not binding in the UK.

 

An exception was 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. No such provision was contained within the EU referendum legislation.

 

[tebee]

37 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

We do know what we want, we've been waiting to leave for the last 3 years (or more).

(I've been waiting to leave the EU since 1992, but that's by the by).

Mrs May is not really representative of the Brexit movement that she was never a part of.

Why the rush now? Well, the EU and China have serious economic risks on the horizon.

 

.....

You may know precisely what you want, I doubt the general leave voting population did. Only one third of Leave voters thought they were voting to leave the single market in 2016.

 

Do you not think no deal has serious economic risks?

[joecoolfrog]

On 9/13/2019 at 3:42 PM, 7by7 said:

Yet people try to tell us Brexiteers aren't racist!

 

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

Its incredible is it not.

Some years back I was drinking in a bar in Phuket when a grumpy English expat  started raving about Britain being a <deleted> hole and stating that he would never go back.

Rising to the challenge I respectfully asked him why so. " Too many coloureds and bloody foreigners " he eloquently explained.

I only got as far as briefly pointing out the irony of a foreigner ( in Thailand ) complaining about foreigners, when a sharp dig in the ribs from my girlfriend dissuaded me from continuing the discussion.

15 minutes later he was thrown out after a tirade against ' thieving Thais ' , he considered the beer prices excessive and told the owner he would only pay for 3 of the 4 beers he had consumed.

A large Aussie local persuaded him to pay in full , shame really , I was hoping the bar girls would give him a good hiding lol.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Then you should have sent him a PM not posted it in an open forum. You do understand the concept of an open forum, don't you?

Mine was a answer to a fair question on this forum. No James Bond stuff. You guys are absurd. 

[Thongkorn]

49 minutes ago, tebee said:

You may know precisely what you want, I doubt the general leave voting population did. Only one third of Leave voters thought they were voting to leave the single market in 2016.

 

Do you not think no deal has serious economic risks?

I voted to leave a Quango, unelected people who cannot be sacked or reprimanded who go in a room in secret lock the door and make laws for 500 million people. I remember joining a free trade group not a political quango. So I knew what i was voting for along with most of the other 14 million people, Nothing to do with Racism. dont confuse being able to vet and allow Foreign People into Britain as Racist, Only allowing People into Britain We want not what the EU tell us we have too except,

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Mine was a answer to a fair question on this forum. No James Bond stuff. You guys are absurd. 

An answer that you insisted only one person was allowed to comment on. Absurd.

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

An answer that you insisted only one person was allowed to comment on. Absurd.

Wrong again. I didn't. But my comment was misinterpreted, twisted and attacked. Par for the remainers. 

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Wrong again. I didn't. But my comment was misinterpreted, twisted and attacked. Par for the remainers. 

Yes of course it was dear. I believe you, thousands wouldn't.

[sanemax]

On 9/14/2019 at 9:51 PM, joecoolfrog said:

Its incredible is it not.

Some years back I was drinking in a bar in Phuket when a grumpy English expat  started raving about Britain being a <deleted> hole and stating that he would never go back.

Rising to the challenge I respectfully asked him why so. " Too many coloureds and bloody foreigners " he eloquently explained.

I only got as far as briefly pointing out the irony of a foreigner ( in Thailand ) complaining about foreigners, when a sharp dig in the ribs from my girlfriend dissuaded me from continuing the discussion.

15 minutes later he was thrown out after a tirade against ' thieving Thais ' , he considered the beer prices excessive and told the owner he would only pay for 3 of the 4 beers he had consumed.

A large Aussie local persuaded him to pay in full , shame really , I was hoping the bar girls would give him a good hiding lol.

*Random post of the day *

[Loiner]

Do you understand that the referendum was ADVISORY?
It looks as if you don't understand what you are posting.

I understand that the LAW was to send the Article 50 notification and Withdraw from the EU.
Nothing advisory about those.

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Joinaman said:

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 ??

 

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

 

Why is it certain Brexiteers cannot make a post without including pathetic, childish insults?

 

Let's start with the Lisbon Treaty. You're information on it obviously comes from one of the many false claims floating about on the internet!

 

There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty

Quote

It’s wrong to say that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in 2020. It was agreed by all EU member countries in 2007 and came into force in 2009, and has been in place ever since. If the UK were to remain in the EU beyond March 2019* for any reason then the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t suddenly change things.

*It says March 2019 because the article was written before then; obviously this fact holds for remaining past October 2019 as well.

 

The article then lists 26 false claims made about the treaty, with full explanations of why they are false.

 

As for the rest of your post, rather than give you my opinion, which you would no doubt dismiss as biased, I refer you to The pros and cons of Brexit. Arguments for and against Britain’s membership of the European Union.

 

[7by7]

20 hours ago, Joinaman said:

could you be kind enough to give us figure that , that if we had left when we were supposed to , instead of dragging it out like it has ?

so who must we blame for most of this loss, the remainers who keep blocking the Leave ?

 Remainers blocking Leave?

 

Like your 'information' about the Lisbon Treaty, you are completely wrong.

 

If it hadn't been for Brexiteer Tories like Rees-Mogg and his ERG and Johnson putting personal ambition above the country we would have left the EU last March!

[sanemax]

On 9/14/2019 at 11:28 PM, 7by7 said:

 Remainers blocking Leave?

 

Like your 'information' about the Lisbon Treaty, you are completely wrong.

 

If it hadn't been for Brexiteer Tories like Rees-Mogg and his ERG and Johnson putting personal ambition above the country we would have left the EU last March!

Remainers were in favour of leaving and have done nothing to stop it

I didnt know that , learn something new every day

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Joinaman said:

And how many of these MPs came out on TV and the newspapers saying they would abide by the results, Leave meant Leave, and no are crawling in their little holes while stabbing the people of the UK in the back

IF this leave fails, then lets back Corbyn in the next election, , lets show our contempt for the country just like our MPs are doing to the people who voted

The trouble with voting Labour, and the murder loving Corbyn, is i would not wish this on my worst enemy

 

As said many times, the reason we did not leave last march is down to the back stabbing by  Rees-Mogg, his ERG, Johnson and other Tories.

 

I do agree, though, that Parliament can't or won't make the decision. So let's give that decision to us, the people, in a final, legally binding referendum.

[7by7]

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

We are long past the referendum details. Why do you keep harping on about advisory blah blah non-binding blah? 

 

These are not advisory, they are binding, they are the law:

The first one was done, even by Treason May. She didn't complete the second one, so Boris has to do the job for her, despite Remainer lies and trickery.

 

 

The referendum was advisory, the government chose to act upon that advice. Hence those two Acts.

 

But they were blocked by Parliament; mainly by the activities of Rees-Mogg, his ERG, Johnson and other Tories who put their personal ambitions ahead of the country. Now those ambitions have been achieved they are full steam ahead for Brexit; probably via May's deal with a little tweaking to make it look like Johnson's deal.

 

But who's to say other MPs won't block that? You seem to have a very low opinion of MPs, so I assume you wouldn't!

 

Having a final referendum which is legally binding will stop such antics as Parliament will have no choice other than to act upon it.

 

Three choices, using the type of transferable vote system I've described many times before.

 

Leave with the deal,

Leave with no deal,

Remain.

 

You may argue that having made the referendum legally binding, Parliament could change it's mind afterwards. Yes, Parliament is sovereign, it could. But although sovereign it does have constraints upon it's actions and it is my understanding, though I stand to be corrected, that it would first have to act upon a legally binding referendum result before taking any steps to change it.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, kingdong said:

Because parliament triggered article 50,pity they didn,listen to your views

See my reply to Loiner above.

 

You still haven't answered the question, though.

 

Why are you afraid of a final, legally binding referendum?

 

If you are so sure that the majority agree with you, then you've nothing to fear!