Farage says Brexit will be delayed again when PM Johnson's deal falls

[CaptainNemo]

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I have provided evidence to back up my claim that it's a myth many times; and have done so yet again just for you; see above.

 

Now, produce your evidence; if you have any.

Evidence for what?! You made the claim that it's a myth, and nothing you have posted proves a word of your claim.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

How do I put this... on BBC radio, it's been repeatedly reported that the EU says there is no further deal to be negotiated. They now say Britain has to put some new proposal in writing by 2 weeks, but no willingness on their part to change their position. You know it's true.

Open the links I posted and the ones you posted. 

 

They all refer to ongoing talks. 

 

Even you now admit they are asking the uk to come up with new proposals. 

 

Yes there is a time frame but that is not a refusal to listen to ideas. 

 

The very opposite in fact. 

 

You cannot expect them to go into talks talks without a position on the outcome they would prefer.

 

Do you expect the eu to simply accept johnson’s demands?

 

No one is refusing to negotiate. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Bluespunk

[CaptainNemo]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 They negotiated, the agreed a deal with the then UK government and we would have left last March had not Rees-Mogg, Johnson and other Tories put personal ambition ahead of country.

 

The EU have repeatedly said that they are willing to negotiate any and all reasonable proposals. But how could they when until today Johnson hadn't given them any proposals to negotiate?

 

Brexit: UK shares confidential documents with EU

 

 

No, you're not getting away with that. I appreciate that you think you are making factual statements when you say so and so put personal ambition first, but actually you are making fatuous statements about the motives of politicians you personally don't like. Even people you don't like have principles.

 

People voted down a terrible deal that would have resulted in the EU retaining control over a part of the UK. That is totally unacceptable and at odds with the whole idea of leaving the EU. Mrs May was (to put it very politely) exceedingly remiss in trying to pass off such a thing as "a deal".

 

The EU have repeatedly said there's no further deal to negotiate. Their notion of "reasonable" is unreasonable, if it is that they must retain control of part of the UK in order for the UK to be able to leave with a deal. You wouldn't sell your house to someone who insisted on being able to keep using part of it!

 

A deal requires that the EU concede something so that trade can take place between the UK and the EU, trade that a number of EU member state jobs and businesses rely on. The EU isn't acting in the best interests of EU citizens if it chokes exports by demanding political control in exchange for trade.

[CaptainNemo]

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Open the links I posted and the ones you posted. 

Erm... but they are quoted as saying there is no other deal possible... I mean, are you saying that they didn't say that?

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

They all refer to ongoing talks. 

So?

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

 

Even you now admit they are asking the uk to come up with new proposals. 

"admit"? Well, they are saying that whilst also saying that no other concessions are possible, so what does that mean?

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes there is a time frame but that is not a refusal to listen to ideas. 

Listen? Perhaps they didn't really mean it when they said no further concessions were possible?

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The very opposite in fact. 

Opposite?! Fact?! If they're contradicting themselves, then I guess...

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You cannot expect them to go into talks talks without a position on the outcome they would prefer.

 

Do you expect the eu to simply accept johnson’s demands?

 

No one is refusing to negotiate. 

Yeah? So why bind Johnson's hands over no deal? What does that achieve? Surely it says to the EU, I have to have a deal, to which the EU replies, there's only one deal. That's not much of a negotiation, is it?

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

People voted down a terrible deal that would have resulted in the EU retaining control over a part of the UK. That is totally unacceptable and at odds with the whole idea of leaving the EU. Mrs May was (to put it very politely) exceedingly remiss in trying to pass off such a thing as "a deal".

People voted down mays deal?

 

The people as in the electorate?

 

When was that vote, because I completely missed it...

 

Or are you referring to the no dealers sabotaging their own government’s negotiated agreement?

Edited September 19, 2019 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

Erm... but they are quoted as saying there is no other deal possible... I mean, are you saying that they didn't say that?

So?

"admit"? Well, they are saying that whilst also saying that no other concessions are possible, so what does that mean?

Listen? Perhaps they didn't really mean it when they said no further concessions were possible?

Opposite?! Fact?! If they're contradicting themselves, then I guess...

Yeah? So why bind Johnson's hands over no deal? What does that achieve? Surely it says to the EU, I have to have a deal, to which the EU replies, there's only one deal. That's not much of a negotiation, is it?

It may be a tough position but it is not as you claimed a refusal to negotiate. 

 

The uk has had three years to get a deal. They negotiated one and then rejected it. 

 

The eu has every right to expect the uk to come up with a coherent, acceptable and workable alternative. 

 

The fact they have made such demands is not a refusal to negotiate. 

 

Oh and the eu did not bind johnson’s hands over no deal, that was the uk parliament. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Bluespunk

[CaptainNemo]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It may be a tough position but it is not as you claimed a refusal to negotiate. 

but it is though.

Quote

"President Juncker heard what PM Johnson had to say and reiterated the European Union position that the withdrawal agreement is the best and only possible,"

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/EU-Will-Not-Negotiate-New-Brexit-Deal-Junker-Tells-Johnson-20190725-0010.html

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The uk has had three years to get a deal. They negotiated one and then rejected it. 

TM not the UK.

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The eu has every right to expect the uk to come up with a coherent, acceptable and workable alternative. 

...and vice versa.

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The fact they have made such demands is not a refusal to negotiate. 

Apart from the words of the EU president.

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Oh and the eu did not bind johnson’s hands over no deal, that was the uk parliament. 

...who like to keep in touch with the EU.

[Bluespunk]

14 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

but it is though.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/EU-Will-Not-Negotiate-New-Brexit-Deal-Junker-Tells-Johnson-20190725-0010.html

TM not the UK.

...and vice versa.

Apart from the words of the EU president.

...who like to keep in touch with the EU.

No, a refusal would be no talks.

 

The eu expects the uk to come up with a credible alternative and have their own position on negotiations. 

 

The eu has every right to take a tough line given that the uk failed to honour the deal it negotiated (may was the pm so the deal she negotiated was the uks deal).

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Bluespunk

[tebee]

2 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

There is no mandate to remain with or without a deal, but you already knew that. Blame the EU for no deal, it's they who are refusing to negotiate.

The referendum didn't give a mandate for anything specific, this is the core of the problem.  

[Loiner]

The referendum didn't give a mandate for anything specific, this is the core of the problem.  

The mandate of the referendum was to Leave. Full stop. No Question.
The EU, Treason May and the Remainers thought they had tricked us into a Surrender Treaty that could see us never actually Leaving. BRINO.
The whole of Parliament saw through that and kicked it out. Three times.
The EU and Remainers cannot get another trick passed but have managed to stop us Leaving so far. This is the real core of the problem.

[Forethat]

2 hours ago, Loiner said:

The mandate of the referendum was to Leave. Full stop. No Question.
The EU, Treason May and the Remainers thought they had tricked us into a Surrender Treaty that could see us never actually Leaving. BRINO.
The whole of Parliament saw through that and kicked it out. Three times.
The EU and Remainers cannot get another trick passed but have managed to stop us Leaving so far. This is the real core of the problem.

But the question clearly is: Did the referendum give mandate for an EU-exit while the PM downed a pint of Pride - all while doing a handstand around a pool table? If you ask a Limp Remainer that option was never on the ballot, so....

[wilcopops]

Come on, respect the 1975 referendum. Remain won, leave lost, get over it.

[wilcopops]

7 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

I know it's frustrating isn't it... you have to go and read up facts for yourself rather than quoting misinformed idiots from the Guardian and BBC. It's your lot that made the claim first that it's a myth, and you have failed to support it, so by your own standards you lack credibility.

 

I don't refust to offer anything to back it up, I just insist that you back up your claim that there's no problem first, then I'll respond, rather than me do all the work for you for you to just come back glib and unsubstantiated refutations. I've done this before, I know how the game goes.

 

You are the propagandist, and you'll have to raise your game. I and many others have acres of evidence that utterly refutes your claims, but I'm not going to post it until you post your evidence, because your side made the claim first - that it's a myth about... well go back and read it further up the thread...

 

[DannyCarlton]

On 9/17/2019 at 4:12 AM, englishoak said:

The British system has had parliament for 800 years...but only had democracy of a sort for about 150 and properly for all for about 90, if the will of the people is thwarted now that democratic experiment has come to an end. Truly all that will be left is a police state and voting proven to be no longer worth the ballot paper. 

Thanks for your fantastic ramble on British democracy. How many times in that 800 year history has a referendum played a part in British democracy? Very few. Why? Because referendums aren't an integral part of British democracy. Do you know which ideology has referendums as the centrepiece of it's political system? The only one is Anarchism. Is that what you want, Anarchism?

 

The British democratic system is built on the premise that the people elect their local MP every 5 years then trust that MP to make decisions, laws on their behalf. They don't take instruction from their constituents for every vote they make, that again would be anarchy. The MPs make their decisions on the debates they hear in parliament and make their decisions on their considered judgment on what will be in the best inerests of their constituents. This is parliamentary democracy, which is soveriegn.

 

However, you are correct that democracy in the UK is under greater threat than at any time since Cromwell. Johnson prorouged parliament for 5 weeks with the specific aim of stymeing parliament and prevent it from debating and passing laws pertinent to Brexit. A clear breach of the sovereignty of parliamentary democracy.

 

Also, the UK doesn't have a written constitution, the British constitution is generally accepted to be the laws of the land, laws created by MPs in parliament. A breach of these laws is a breach of the constitution. Johnson has sworn not to uphold the law compelling him to ask the EU for an extension to Brexit. He is sticking 2 fingers up to the constitution.

 

Why did Corbyn turn down Johnson's request for a GE? Was it because he was running scared or was it because he knows that Johnson has no respect for the soveriegnty of parliamentary democracy and the British constitution. By acceeding to Johnson's demand for a GE, it would allow Johnson to set the date for the election, something that Johnson would further use to stymie parliamentary democracy and force a no deal Brexit, against the will of the people and of  parliament.

 

Ask yourself why both the SNP and the Lib Dems didn't vote for a GE as they both had much to gain from a snap election. It was because they put nation before party and did what they are required to do under their job description.

 

Johnson is the real threat to democracy, not remainers.

 

 

[MRToMRT]

9 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

Comedy has to be true to be funny, and has to kick up against the elite, this is a joke based on a lie and supporting the elite, so it isn't funny.

You need to get to a temple or practice some deep breathing exercises ;+) Seriously though what's your blood pressure today?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Thanks for your fantastic ramble on British democracy. How many times in that 800 year history has a referendum played a part in British democracy? Very few. Why? Because referendums aren't an integral part of British democracy. Do you know which ideology has referendums as the centrepiece of it's political system? The only one is Anarchism. Is that what you want, Anarchism?

 

The British democratic system is built on the premise that the people elect their local MP every 5 years then trust that MP to make decisions, laws on their behalf. They don't take instruction from their constituents for every vote they make, that again would be anarchy. The MPs make their decisions on the debates they hear in parliament and make their decisions on their considered judgment on what will be in the best inerests of their constituents. This is parliamentary democracy, which is soveriegn.

 

However, you are correct that democracy in the UK is under greater threat than at any time since Cromwell. Johnson prorouged parliament for 5 weeks with the specific aim of stymeing parliament and prevent it from debating and passing laws pertinent to Brexit. A clear breach of the sovereignty of parliamentary democracy.

 

Also, the UK doesn't have a written constitution, the British constitution is generally accepted to be the laws of the land, laws created by MPs in parliament. A breach of these laws is a breach of the constitution. Johnson has sworn not to uphold the law compelling him to ask the EU for an extension to Brexit. He is sticking 2 fingers up to the constitution.

 

Why did Corbyn turn down Johnson's request for a GE? Was it because he was running scared or was it because he knows that Johnson has no respect for the soveriegnty of parliamentary democracy and the British constitution. By acceeding to Johnson's demand for a GE, it would allow Johnson to set the date for the election, something that Johnson would further use to stymie parliamentary democracy and force a no deal Brexit, against the will of the people and of  parliament.

 

Ask yourself why both the SNP and the Lib Dems didn't vote for a GE as they both had much to gain from a snap election. It was because they put nation before party and did what they are required to do under their job description.

 

Johnson is the real threat to democracy, not remainers.

 

 

Except that remainers want to overturn the democratic vote of 2016. Right?

[Rookiescot]

37 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Except that remainers want to overturn the democratic vote of 2016. Right?

That would be the democratic vote where we were promised we would be stating in the single market?

[nauseus]

As this is about what Farage is supposed to have said, I had a listen in to his LBC show last night. Most of it was about Cameron but the last segment included a soundbite from Juncker, who had had a meeting with Johnson. Juncker mentioned a "positive" meeting and that a deal was possible. Analysis/comment by Farage and Theo Usherwood highlighted that this is quite a shift from the previous and consistent hard EU line. Juncker had acknowledged that a no-deal would have "catastrophic consequences" for Britain AND the EU. I'm not sure what Tusk has to say, he's gone pretty quiet lately! 

 

So the EU stance seems to have changed significantly and quickly. Of course it may be a diversion down a dead-end street but several large EU industries must have put pressure on their own governments, and the EU itself, especially as economic recession is high risk to the EU at the moment.

 

I don't expect any new agreement to be too much different to the existing one and I'm not sure if it would be able to pass through parliament. If all this is true, I just hope Boris can secure several key changes and not just a backstop alternative. 

 

I tend to believe this as the pound ticked up a bit more (against a strong dollar) again this morning.

 

We will see. 

[tebee]

9 hours ago, Loiner said:

The mandate of the referendum was to Leave. Full stop. No Question.
The EU, Treason May and the Remainers thought they had tricked us into a Surrender Treaty that could see us never actually Leaving. BRINO.
The whole of Parliament saw through that and kicked it out. Three times.
The EU and Remainers cannot get another trick passed but have managed to stop us Leaving so far. This is the real core of the problem.

but Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Albania, Canada, Mauritania are all not EU members ? You agree so far?

So becoming like any those would fulfil any mandate to leave the EU 

But the all have different relationships with the EU, different consequences for the economy, different consequences for the you and me.

You can't have a referendum that binds the government to do something without saying what that something is !

This is why the referendum was, and could only be advisory .

Thring to hijack the result and say "we voted for no deal and nothing else " is a subversion of democracy and the way dictators take control    

[Blue Muton]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

The last example here is rather suspect: are 50k salaries really taxed at more than 40%?? People can read various accounts of benefits (or not) of EU workers contributions to the UK economy, and there are many. They can then form their own opinion. Well paid EU workers may well pay in more than they take out but I remain sceptical about the overall benefit to the UK. It's not just a question of tax revenue. 

You seem to be confusing taxes (overall taxation) with a particular tax in isolation (income tax). If you are talking about income tax, the amount for someone earning £50k in 2016/17 would have been £11,400 (about 23%). NI contributions would have been a further £5,300.

 

However, the report quite rightly looks at total tax. They looked at totals for the various groups but we can make some reasonable assumptions for a hypothetical person.

 

After income tax and NI they are left with about £3,000 per month.

 

A large part of their budget would be for VAT exempt food. Let's assume then that they spend £500 a month on other shopping (i.e. VAT payable) including eating out. That would be another £1,000 tax per year.

 

It's reasonable to expect somebody earning £50k would drive a car, so that's maybe £130 on Vehicle Excise duty and say £80 per week on unleaded fuel, so that's 70 litres per week at £1.15 per litre, bringing in fuel duty at around 60p/litre and VAT at 20%. That's another £3,612.

 

The above taxes total £21,442 per year or 43% of their original £50,000 so in my opinion it is very easy to see that their tax bill could be around 40%. 

 

The total sum in taxes paid would of course be higher if they were smokers (Tobacco Duty), Drinkers (Alcohol Duty), took out insurance (Insurance Premium Tax), gambled (Gambling Duties) or took flights back home or elsewhere (Air Passenger Duty).

 

Sums have been calculated based on HMRC for the period, link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2016-overview-of-tax-legislation-and-rates-ootlar/overview-of-tax-legislation-and-rates-2016-tables-of-rates-and-allowances-annex-b

 

[beautifulthailand99]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:16 AM, JonnyF said:

If the Lib Dems win the General Election there is no way they should be given power.

 

Everyone should pontificate for 3 years, claim the Lib Dem voters were stupid or didn't know what they voted for, then claim a lot of the voters have since died so the vote is no longer valid. Then simply let Parliament argue amongst themselves about the best way forward (after all, Parliament is sovereign) and then point out the vote is now 3 years old so we need to have another election before the Lib Dems even get into government. After all, people are allowed to change their minds, right. Democracy doesn't happen on one day, right.

 

That's the way the Liberal Democrats like it, so let them taste their own medicine. Swinson is a disgrace. Lied about tuition fees and now lied about respecting the referendum result. Yet expects the GE result to stand if she wins. What a muppet.

 

We don't have advisory elections for our sovereign UK parliament. Any nostalgic kippers fancy a walk down memory lane with a pub full of bores then UKIP's conference, to which the leader |(really Dick Braine) isn't coming could be for you. Anyway Farage will soon get bored when he doesn't get what he wants and jet off to well paid speaking trips - leaving you leavers with a life looking forward to the Express with Princess Di conspiracies  and Where is Maddy Now as the only things to brighten up your day. As  you rot away in a rotting state left only with bitterness and regrets and a handful of almost worthless pounds. 

[nauseus]

59 minutes ago, tebee said:

but Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Albania, Canada, Mauritania are all not EU members ? You agree so far?

So becoming like any those would fulfil any mandate to leave the EU 

But the all have different relationships with the EU, different consequences for the economy, different consequences for the you and me.

You can't have a referendum that binds the government to do something without saying what that something is !

This is why the referendum was, and could only be advisory .

Thring to hijack the result and say "we voted for no deal and nothing else " is a subversion of democracy and the way dictators take control    

Using these other countries makes for a silly argument. The vote was to leave. 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

You seem to be confusing taxes (overall taxation) with a particular tax in isolation (income tax). If you are talking about income tax, the amount for someone earning £50k in 2016/17 would have been £11,400 (about 23%). NI contributions would have been a further £5,300.

 

However, the report quite rightly looks at total tax. They looked at totals for the various groups but we can make some reasonable assumptions for a hypothetical person.

 

After income tax and NI they are left with about £3,000 per month.

 

A large part of their budget would be for VAT exempt food. Let's assume then that they spend £500 a month on other shopping (i.e. VAT payable) including eating out. That would be another £1,000 tax per year.

 

It's reasonable to expect somebody earning £50k would drive a car, so that's maybe £130 on Vehicle Excise duty and say £80 per week on unleaded fuel, so that's 70 litres per week at £1.15 per litre, bringing in fuel duty at around 60p/litre and VAT at 20%. That's another £3,612.

 

The above taxes total £21,442 per year or 43% of their original £50,000 so in my opinion it is very easy to see that their tax bill could be around 40%. 

 

The total sum in taxes paid would of course be higher if they were smokers (Tobacco Duty), Drinkers (Alcohol Duty), took out insurance (Insurance Premium Tax), gambled (Gambling Duties) or took flights back home or elsewhere (Air Passenger Duty).

 

Sums have been calculated based on HMRC for the period, link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2016-overview-of-tax-legislation-and-rates-ootlar/overview-of-tax-legislation-and-rates-2016-tables-of-rates-and-allowances-annex-b

 

As I said, I was looking at the last example, which was that of a 50K/year individual. Personal income tax. That's it. If they smoke and drink that is a personal choice and irrelevant. 

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Except that remainers want to overturn the democratic vote of 2016. Right?

Not overturn, but update with a democratic vote in 2020/21.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Not overturn, but update with a democratic vote in 2020/21.

Operation Overturn it is then.

[Loiner]

but Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Albania, Canada, Mauritania are all not EU members ? You agree so far?
So becoming like any those would fulfil any mandate to leave the EU 
But the all have different relationships with the EU, different consequences for the economy, different consequences for the you and me.
You can't have a referendum that binds the government to do something without saying what that something is !
This is why the referendum was, and could only be advisory .
Thring to hijack the result and say "we voted for no deal and nothing else " is a subversion of democracy and the way dictators take control    

The terms of the Merkel/May Surrender Treaty do not provide any agreement similar to those of the countries you name.
The EU and Remainers want us to sign a treaty which will tie us to the EU possibly for ever. If they are prepared to negotiate arrangements like those, then skip the divorce deal, Leave, then start the trade deals.
Referendum blah advisory blah blah. It didn’t mention a divorce deal and that is what we must not be conned into. That is your subversion of democracy.
If you want to be more explicit: No Divorce Deal, Trade Deals After.

[Blue Muton]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

As I said, I was looking at the last example, which was that of a 50K/year individual. Personal income tax. That's it. If they smoke and drink that is a personal choice and irrelevant. 

Nonsense, it did not say that. The link is still there for you to double check.

[Blue Muton]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Operation Overturn it is then.

Or to give its full name "Operation Overturn Fraudulent  Result". Quite right, too.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Using these other countries makes for a silly argument. The vote was to leave. 

OK lets leave under the same terms Norway  has then.....

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Using these other countries makes for a silly argument. The vote was to leave. 

Yes to leave with a deal which keeps us in the single market.

Its only after leave won that the goalposts got moved to become no deal Brexit.

No deal Brexit is unworkable for many reason not least of which is the Irish border.

Oddly enough if we remain in the single market the Irish border is not an issue.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Rookiescot
typo