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

[7by7]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

There was not a referendum on joining the European Economic Community before we actually joined - the then so-called "Common Market" - but there was a confirmation referendum on staying in the EEC in 1975. That "community" mutated into the EU (via the Masstricht Treaty of 1992) which enabled a far more political "union" than was ever explained to the British people in the 1970's. John Major pushed the UK in without a referendum allowed before Masstricht. Sentiment to leave has been building up ever since we were pushed into the EEC by Heath in 1973. 

 

As shown many times, the future aims of the community finally embodied in the Maastricht treaty were not only well known and publicised at the time of the 1975 referendum, but well before.

 

The last time being post 623 of this topic

 

Maybe Major should have held a referendum on Maastricht, maybe Thatcher should have held a referendum on the Single European Act; but they didn't.

 

[billd766]

23 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

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

 

Well in the 1975 referendum that I voted in there actually was no EU. There was the EEC which IIRC was the European Economic Community which I voted in favour of remaining with.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

 

The EU and European citizenship were established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993.[18] The EU traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome. The original members of what came to be known as the European Communities were the Inner Six: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The Communities and their successors have grown in size by the accession of new member states and in power by the addition of policy areas to their remit. The latest major amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon, came into force in 2009. No member state has left the EU or its antecedent organisations (Greenland, an autonomous territory within Denmark, left the Communities in 1985). However, the United Kingdom signified its intention to leave after a membership referendum in June 2016 and is negotiating its withdrawal.

 

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

<snip>

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.

Patriotic? Not a chance.

 There, in a nutshell, is the type of country some Brexiteers want; a state where dissenting voices are not allowed!

 

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

If you go the EU way there will be no country left.

Really? I've already provided the proof that the Lisbon Treaty myth is a load of old pony; so what else do you have?

[7by7]

6 hours ago, transam said:

"Remainers are patriotic"......Are you sure you're on the right thread...?

Yes.

 

6 hours ago, transam said:

 

Your last para just shows how you think...Amazing.....

 As it says, that para was a direct response to @kingdong saying that those who don't share his political beliefs should leave the country! Which is why I said "I hope you are not serious....."

 

Not that you are interested; taking remarks out of context is par for the course for you.

[DannyCarlton]

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Maybe Major should have held a referendum on Maastricht, maybe Thatcher should have held a referendum on the Single European Act; but they didn't.

Personally, I think the nation should be allowed a referendum on whether Boris buys a comb or not.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

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

Assuming you win, right?

 What is it you don't understand about 'legally binding?'

[Loiner]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

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.

Referendum blah advisory blah blah.
Article 50 - LAW
Withdrawal - LAW

 

Another referendum - EU and Remainer potential chance to overturn Brexit.

Deal - EU and Remainer lies and trickery to usurp the Withdrawal Law.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

This was a reply and explanation to Mike. I am not referring to what the constitution says. Such a nosey parker. 

 

 

 You have frequently responded to posts which were direct replies to another member; so what does that make you?

[billd766]

22 hours ago, Slip said:

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

If it wasn't binding then why has the UK spent over 3 years and billions of GBP in trying to leave the EU?

 

Parliament agreed to it in 2016 and in parliament there are some very smart people (not that many) who could have said STOP, this is not legally binding, but they didn't.

 

There are literally hundreds of lawyers who could have challenged it in the courts, but they didn't.

 

Millions of the electorate voted for and against it (many couldn't be bothered) and if they wanted to stop it they could have done by not voting, but they didn't.

 

I get so sick of posters who keep banging this drum and saying that it wasn't binding. If that is correct then it couldn't be legal, and once again hundreds of lawyers would have jumped at the chance to over turn it, but they didn't.

 

It has been running for 3 years and the government, parliament and the citizenss of the UK have accepted it. Even the EU has accepted it.

 

Why can't the Remainers accept it as a fact and just get on with it?

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

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

 

I won't bother asking why you say that, you haven't answered that yet, so I see no reason why you would now.

 

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

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

How do you know that they did?

 

The only way to be sure of how many vote for which option is to put all three to the people in a transferable vote, final, legally binding, referendum.

 

No arguments after that about what people did or didn't mean when they voted.

 

No procrastination by Parliament either.

[vogie]

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 There, in a nutshell, is the type of country some Brexiteers want; a state where dissenting voices are not allowed!

 

Really? I've already provided the proof that the Lisbon Treaty myth is a load of old pony; so what else do you have?

Really? I've already provided the proof that the Lisbon Treaty myth is a load of old pony; so what else do you have?

 

Guy Verhofstadt speaking at one of the Lib/Dems rallys? Empire building.

 

 

•  

[sanemax]

On 9/15/2019 at 12:21 AM, 7by7 said:

 What is it you don't understand about 'legally binding?'

What is it that you dont understand about the word "irrelevant' .

[7by7]

3 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

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

 

Yes, indeed I have done so several times already!

 

2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum

Quote

It was also the first that was not merely consultative: it committed the government to give effect to its decision.^[1]

 

The precedent has been set; no reason why we cannot have another, legally binding referendum.

[DannyCarlton]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

If it wasn't binding then why has the UK spent over 3 years and billions of GBP in trying to leave the EU?

 

Parliament agreed to it in 2016 and in parliament there are some very smart people (not that many) who could have said STOP, this is not legally binding, but they didn't.

 

There are literally hundreds of lawyers who could have challenged it in the courts, but they didn't.

 

Millions of the electorate voted for and against it (many couldn't be bothered) and if they wanted to stop it they could have done by not voting, but they didn't.

 

I get so sick of posters who keep banging this drum and saying that it wasn't binding. If that is correct then it couldn't be legal, and once again hundreds of lawyers would have jumped at the chance to over turn it, but they didn't.

 

It has been running for 3 years and the government, parliament and the citizenss of the UK have accepted it. Even the EU has accepted it.

 

Why can't the Remainers accept it as a fact and just get on with it?

I get sick of posters who keep banging on about, "Cameron promised us", "It's the democratic will of the people", "if we don't leave there will be a revolution" etc. etc.

 

Lawyers did challenge it in the courts, the action only failed because the referendum was deemed advisory not binding.

 

Remainers wouldn't keep banging on about it if Brexiteers accepted the fact that it was advisory and keep trying to make points that would only be valid if the referendum was binding. Do try and move on, the referendum was advisory and that's not going to change.

 

[sanemax]

On 9/15/2019 at 12:35 AM, 7by7 said:

 

Yes, indeed I have done so several times already!

 

2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum

 

The precedent has been set; no reason why we cannot have another, legally binding referendum.

At least be honest , you have no concerns about the legality of the 2016 referendum , you are just using a technicality to try to get that vote overturned and to have another referendum which will hopefully go your way this time

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

At least be honest , you have no concerns about the legality of the 2016 referendum , you are just using a technicality to try to get that vote overturned and to have another referendum which will hopefully go your way this time

Good idea Saneo! I'll vote for that!

[7by7]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

1 hour ago, 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

 

Twisting words is your speciality; you should form a club with Transam and Yogi100!

 

I did not say that Remainers were in favour of leaving; what I said was "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!" which is perfectly true.

 

But whether MPs are Remainer or Brexiteer, give us a legally binding referendum and they won't be able to block the result.

[7by7]

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

Really? I've already provided the proof that the Lisbon Treaty myth is a load of old pony; so what else do you have?

 

Guy Verhofstadt speaking at one of the Lib/Dems rallys? Empire building.

 

One man speaking for himself, not speaking for the EU!

 

For any of the changes you fear to happen would require the unanimous approval of all member states. The Lisbon Treaty hasn't changed that.

[7by7]

20 minutes ago, sanemax said:

32 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 What is it you don't understand about 'legally binding?'

What is it that you dont understand about the word "irrelevant' .

 I understand the meaning of irrelevant completely.

 

I also understand your use of it here; used to dodge the issue and avoid the question!

 

[7by7]

18 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Remainers wouldn't keep banging on about it if Brexiteers accepted the fact that it was advisory and keep trying to make points that would only be valid if the referendum was binding. Do try and move on, the referendum was advisory and that's not going to change.

 

We also wouldn't keep banging on about it had Parliament got it's act together and made sure we left on the agreed date last March.

 

But Rees-Mogg, his ERG, Johnson and other back stabbing Tories made sure that didn't happen!

 

Parliament can't or won't decide for us, so let us make the decision for ourselves.

[sanemax]

On 9/15/2019 at 12:55 AM, 7by7 said:

 I understand the meaning of irrelevant completely.

 

I also understand your use of it here; used to dodge the issue and avoid the question!

 

Its irrelevant as to whether the referendum was legally binding or not , it just the losers looking for a reason not to comply with the result

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

We also wouldn't keep banging on about it had Parliament got it's act together and made sure we left on the agreed date last March.

 

But Rees-Mogg, his ERG, Johnson and other back stabbing Tories made sure that didn't happen!

 

Parliament can't or won't decide for us, so let us make the decision for ourselves.

This will really upset the Brexiteers.

 

More and more MPs are coming round to just revoking article 50 unilaterally and putting an end to all this nonsense. Could be some interesting parliamentary sessions post party conferences.

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Its irrelevant as to whether the referendum was legally binding or not , it just the losers looking for a reason not to comply with the result

Hang on, who's the losers? Are we still in the EU or not?

[kingdong]

42 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes.

 

 As it says, that para was a direct response to @kingdong saying that those who don't share his political beliefs should leave the country! Which is why I said "I hope you are not serious....."

 

Not that you are interested; taking remarks out of context is par for the course for you.

Didn,t say that at all as you well know,insert the passage I wrote instead of trying to put words in my mouth and taking them out of context,very childish when you have to use these type of arguments

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, sanemax said:

At least be honest , you have no concerns about the legality of the 2016 referendum , you are just using a technicality to try to get that vote overturned and to have another referendum which will hopefully go your way this time

 

As i have said, I accepted the 2016 result at first (go back and look at my post on the subject at the time if you don't believe me).

 

I have explained my change of mind many times; but I repeat:

 

Parliament can't or won't make a decision, so let us, the people make it in a final, legally binding referendum.

 

If the result of that is to leave, with or without a deal, then so be it. Instead of advice which Parliament can choose to ignore, we, the people will have given an instruction which Parliament will be legally bound to follow.

 

Got it now?

[billd766]

6 hours 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 agree with you that the referendum was badly written but try to understand that it was written by or on behalf of the government at the time and up to the point of putting it out to be acted upon the was a wealth of government legal advisors who could and should have done a final draft before releasing it onto the public.

 

Having said that, that was 3 or 4 years ago. That was then and this is now and what we have to work with which is reality.

 

What went on before is water under the bridge and cannot be undone. Anybody, MP or commoner could have challenged the referendum in the courts before the actual votes and they might have won but it appears nobody did. The last 3 years is a direct result of that.

 

If there is to be another referendum whoever draws it up had better make sure that it is word perfect, specify what the options are exactly, specify what the pass/fail mark is to be, specify what actions are to be taken on whatever choice is made and specify exactly.

what will happen is the pass mark is not achieved.

 

Whatever government will be in charge of that referendum must also clearly state that whatever option is chosen by the public, that is what will happen.

 

If the Lib/Dems under Jo Swinson are not prepared to accept the result the result if it goes as Leave then tough on her. She speaks for the Lib/Dem party only.

 

 

[kingdong]

15 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Hang on, who's the losers? Are we still in the EU or not?

The remainers,you were offered a general election and bottled it.How much further damage do they want to do to what I assume (at least in some cases ) is their country?

[Forethat]

24 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Hang on, who's the losers? Are we still in the EU or not?

I do have admit I'm not surprised to see that type of question from a remainer.

 

And, yes, we landed on the moon.

[oldhippy]

12 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I do have admit I'm not surprised to see that type of question from a remainer.

 

And, yes, we landed on the moon.

OMG.

Another analogy.

PS: who is "we"?

[Slip]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

If it wasn't binding then why has the UK spent over 3 years and billions of GBP in trying to leave the EU?

 

Parliament agreed to it in 2016 and in parliament there are some very smart people (not that many) who could have said STOP, this is not legally binding, but they didn't.

 

There are literally hundreds of lawyers who could have challenged it in the courts, but they didn't.

 

Millions of the electorate voted for and against it (many couldn't be bothered) and if they wanted to stop it they could have done by not voting, but they didn't.

 

I get so sick of posters who keep banging this drum and saying that it wasn't binding. If that is correct then it couldn't be legal, and once again hundreds of lawyers would have jumped at the chance to over turn it, but they didn't.

 

It has been running for 3 years and the government, parliament and the citizenss of the UK have accepted it. Even the EU has accepted it.

 

Why can't the Remainers accept it as a fact and just get on with it?

None of your little rant matters.  My point stands. Sorry that you wasted your time with one fingered typing.

 

EDIT: The fact that we are still talking about 'legally binding' is because of the brexiteers continued use of the phrase 'legally binding referendum' in reference to what happened in 2016.  If you could only persuade them to stop talking <deleted>, we could move on from it.