EU, UK to step up Brexit talks to try to close 'significant gaps' over trade deal

[polpott]

17 hours ago, polpott said:

Brexiteers don't need evidence. If they say it then it is. Got it?

 

10 minutes ago, Loiner said:

A clear case of a corrupt Remainer judiciary trying to subvert the elected government delivering their mandated Brexit. 

QED.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, transam said:

<snip>

Strange comment, Brexit was voted for by the electorate, yet remainers did everything they could to stop it. The only thing that fixed it was a general election, the electorate voted for it again.....Well didn't they..?

So what, exactly, did Remainers do to try and stop Brexit?

 

Mays deal, the one Brexiteers labelled as Brino? Well, as Boris' preferred deal is exactly the same as that in all intents and purposes; you must be against that deal as well and think of Boris as a Remainer!

 

 Approximately 53% of voters voted for parties which promised a referendum on the final deal.

 

As a self professed champion of democracy, surely you should be demanding that democratic wish be granted?

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Phulublub said:

7 hours ago, transam said:

<snip>

It seems to me that you and others here have been ducking and diving with daft comments over what the electorate has actually voted for.....Very starange...????

So the electorate voted for no deal?  I think some may have voted for the oven ready deal

 Obviously a significant proportion voted for Remain or Brexit regardless of any and all arguments; because that is what they believed was best for the country.

 

But the result was swung by the campaigns of both sides.

 

Cummings and his Vote.Leave promised an easy Brexit whereby we would keep all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities. That is what many voted for, that is what we never stood a chance of getting.

 

But those false promises is why Leave won.

[Loiner]

33 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

A hundred pages that came to the conclusion parliament was sovereign not the UK government and therefor parliament should be able to debate the brexit bills. 

You should have been far more worried that any UK government should try to wrest control over parliament because you guys all love that sovereignty thing.

So the duly elected government was being prevented passage of the bill through a Remainer riddled parliament. Boris got one over them, only to be further thwarted by the corrupt Remainer judiciary in the Supreme Court. 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, transam said:

<snip>

The leave vote happened twice, the second vote confirmed, that folk like you spouting about "deal" should go sit in a corner somewhere and pick your nose instead of picking on daft add-ons......

The leave vote happened twice?

 

Maybe you ex pats in Thailand had a second referendum; we here in the UK didn't!

 

Or do you mean the last GE? The one in which 53% of voters said they wanted a referendum on the final deal?

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

So the duly elected government was being prevented passage of the bill through a Remainer riddled parliament. Boris got one over them, only to be further thwarted by the corrupt Remainer judiciary in the Supreme Court. 

Are you hearing yourself?

Johnson got one over on them? So Johnson tried to circumvent parliament (which is sovereign) and was prevented from doing so by the highest court in the land.

Do you people actually want a dictatorship?

Because you are going the right way about it with that attitude. 

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The leave vote happened twice?

 

Maybe you ex pats in Thailand had a second referendum; we here in the UK didn't!

 

Or do you mean the last GE? The one in which 53% of voters said they wanted a referendum on the final deal?

Stop saying that it upsets them. Will of the people. Sovereignty. Democracy.

Facts are Brexiteer Kryptonite.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, vogie said:

<snip>

In a nut shell, yes. If a deal wasn't to be agreed on, we leave with 'no deal' Prime Minister Cameron at the time told the whole country, it seems the leavers don't have a problem understanding this, so why should the remainers have a problem with it, maybe you don't want to believe it and cannot accept it

Personally, it's because he never said it!

 

He said that the decision to remain or leave was ours to make; but he made no mention of leaving without a deal.

 

Neither did Cummings and his Vote.Leave campaign! Indeed, whenever the consequences of a no deal Brexit where raised, Cummings dismissed the mere possibility of no deal as 'Project Fear!'

 

6 hours ago, vogie said:

The remainers in parliament had ample time to vote for something, they chose not to, so they are the reason where we are today and you either like it or you don't, so stop blaming everyone else, you thought you had a chance to stifle the democratic result and it has backfired on the remainers.

 

Whether it was Remain MPs or Boris and his clique who stopped May's deal; as it was raged against and dismissed at the time by you Brexiteers as BRINO, surely you should be grateful?

[Phulublub]

2 hours ago, Loiner said:

look at the perilous progress through Parliament of the two previous Withdrawal Bills of 2017 and 2018.

Would this be the Sovereign Parliament that many Brexiters were saying was a major reason tey wanted out of the EU?

 

PH

[7by7]

6 hours ago, transam said:

Gawd, the original Brexit voting paper....????

 

After ALL the remainer CR_P to stop Brexit a general election was called to sort it out one way or the other..

 

Now take your time......Why did Boris/Tories get a landslide victory.....?

 Why did only 43.6% of voters vote for Boris?

 

Why did 53% vote for the promise of a referendum on the deal?

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Loiner said:

 

May tried to circumvent Parliament. The Supreme Court stopped her and ensured the matter was put before Parliament.

 

I thought you believed in democracy; seems I was wrong.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

The evidence was in their judgement go have a read of it. Nearly a hundred pages.

 

You are the one making the claim, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.

 

So, whereabouts in the judgement is the proof that the Court is corrupt? Page numbers will do.

 

Assuming, of course, that you have actually read it and can provide them; which I doubt.

[Phulublub]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

Boris was actually quite specific on this. Deals, chickens and ovens weren't mentioned:

 

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

 

So who is this on Boris' twitter feed then?

 

https://twitter.com/borisjohnson/status/1204763516256710658?lang=en

[7by7]

46 minutes ago, Loiner said:

So the duly elected government was being prevented passage of the bill through a Remainer riddled parliament. Boris got one over them, only to be further thwarted by the corrupt Remainer judiciary in the Supreme Court. 

All the above proves is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

 

It was May who wanted to by pass Parliament and refused to present a Bill

 

It was May's government who was taken to court because she wanted to bypass Parliament by not presenting a Bill.

 

It was May's government who lost that case.

 

It was May's government who were therefore forced to present the  European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017.

 

The Bill was passed and became the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

 

Boris was a member of May's government at the time, but I can find no evidence to suggest that he opposed May's attempt to by pass Parliament.

 

His suspending Parliament in October 2019 was deemed unlawful by the Court; but as that led to the 2019 GE, I'd have thought you'd be grateful for that!

 

Personally, I am glad that our constitution means that the Prime Minister is subject to the law and so cannot overrule or ignore Parliament whenever they fear that Parliament will disagree with them.

 

Of course, any PM, or MP for that matter, has the power to introduce a Bill in an attempt to change the powers of the Court; or even do away with it altogether. 

 

If the court is as corrupt as you claim, one has to wonder why none have done so!

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

All the above proves is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

 

It was May who wanted to by pass Parliament and refused to present a Bill

 

It was May's government who was taken to court because she wanted to bypass Parliament by not presenting a Bill.

 

It was May's government who lost that case.

 

It was May's government who were therefore forced to present the  European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017.

 

The Bill was passed and became the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

 

Boris was a member of May's government at the time, but I can find no evidence to suggest that he opposed May's attempt to by pass Parliament.

 

His suspending Parliament in October 2019 was deemed unlawful by the Court; but as that led to the 2019 GE, I'd have thought you'd be grateful for that!

 

Personally, I am glad that our constitution means that the Prime Minister is subject to the law and so cannot overrule or ignore Parliament whenever they fear that Parliament will disagree with them.

 

Of course, any PM, or MP for that matter, has the power to introduce a Bill in an attempt to change the powers of the Court; or even do away with it altogether. 

 

If the court is as corrupt as you claim, one has to wonder why none have done so!

 

You have proved nothing. Again. 

May's government was a Remainer government. The same one that thought the vote would be to Remain. Both closet and outed Remainers in her party were part of the mess they created in parliament and the courts. While ever we have Parliament in both houses, particularly the Remainer riddled rats in the Lords, I am deeply dissatisfied that the constitution allows them and the corrupt judiciary to override the government's madate. 

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

r do you mean the last GE? The one in which 53% of voters said they wanted a referendum on the final deal?

So 53% voted for parties that might have got Brexit done, and most of the rest voted for the party that would definitely get Brexit done. Sounds pretty conclusive to me!

How did the party that promised to stop Brexit get on? 

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, Loiner said:

You have proved nothing. Again. 

May's government was a Remainer government. The same one that thought the vote would be to Remain. Both closet and outed Remainers in her party were part of the mess they created in parliament and the courts. While ever we have Parliament in both houses, particularly the Remainer riddled rats in the Lords, I am deeply dissatisfied that the constitution allows them and the corrupt judiciary to override the government's madate. 

 I refer you to my previous post. You quoted it, but did you read it?

 

You certainly failed to understand it!

 

Your continued repetition of the same points only prove your total ignorance of the subject.

 

I'd suggest that you quit before making an even bigger fool of yourself; except I know that you can't.

[Loiner]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I refer you to my previous post. You quoted it, but did you read it?

 

You certainly failed to understand it!

 

Your continued repetition of the same points only prove your total ignorance of the subject.

 

I'd suggest that you quit before making an even bigger fool of yourself; except I know that you can't.

Suggest away, but you are wrong. You always are but are too pompous to admit it.

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So 53% voted for parties that might have got Brexit done, and most of the rest voted for the party that would definitely get Brexit done. Sounds pretty conclusive to me!

 

No, 53% voted for parties who promised to get Brexit done and give the British people a final say on the deal.

 

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

How did the party that promised to stop Brexit get on?

I assume you mean the LibDems? They were the only party who promised this; but only if they not only had 50%+1 of the popular vote but also the majority of seats in the HoC. If not, then they would support a referendum on the final deal.

 

They increased their share of the vote by 4.2%; where as the party which promised 'to get Brexit done' only increased their share by 1.2%.

 

On the subject of the election; what happened to the 'oven ready deal' Boris promised us during the campaign. It seems that, just like the Vote.Leave promises in 2016, it meant nothing.

[Phulublub]

26 minutes ago, Loiner said:

You have proved nothing. Again. 

May's government was a Remainer government. The same one that thought the vote would be to Remain. Both closet and outed Remainers in her party were part of the mess they created in parliament and the courts. While ever we have Parliament in both houses, particularly the Remainer riddled rats in the Lords, I am deeply dissatisfied that the constitution allows them and the corrupt judiciary to override the government's madate. 

Was May's Government elected?  By the people?  That damn democracy at work again - but seemingly only to be invoked when in your favour?

 

PH

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Suggest away, but you are wrong. You always are but are too pompous to admit it.

 QED; you simply cannot help it; no matter how foolish it proves you to be.

 

All from me on your ridiculous Supreme Court corruption claims; particularly as you weren't even able to get the events of the last three years correct.

[kingdong]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Stop saying that it upsets them. Will of the people. Sovereignty. Democracy.

Facts are Brexiteer Kryptonite.

The big red bus.symbol of freedom.

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

No, 53% voted for parties who promised to get Brexit done and give the British people a final say on the deal.

 

I assume you mean the LibDems? They were the only party who promised this; but only if they not only had 50%+1 of the popular vote but also the majority of seats in the HoC. If not, then they would support a referendum on the final deal.

 

They increased their share of the vote by 4.2%; where as the party which promised 'to get Brexit done' only increased their share by 1.2%.

 

On the subject of the election; what happened to the 'oven ready deal' Boris promised us during the campaign. It seems that, just like the Vote.Leave promises in 2016, it meant nothing.

Ok, so 53% voted for parties that were going to get Brexit done with a condition, and 43.6% voted for the party getting Brexit done with no conditions. That's 96.6% voting in favour of parties accepting Brexit then. As I said before, that's pretty conclusive! 

 

The Lib Dems were the only major party offering to stop Brexit. The 'unashamed party of Remain' went from 12 seats in the HoC to just 11 seats. You should stop digging this hole.

 

Boris' 'over ready deal' was the Withdrawal Agreement - which was subsequently implemented. Your point is? 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

All the above proves is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

 

It was May who wanted to by pass Parliament and refused to present a Bill

 

It was May's government who was taken to court because she wanted to bypass Parliament by not presenting a Bill.

 

It was May's government who lost that case.

 

It was May's government who were therefore forced to present the  European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017.

 

The Bill was passed and became the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

 

Boris was a member of May's government at the time, but I can find no evidence to suggest that he opposed May's attempt to by pass Parliament.

 

His suspending Parliament in October 2019 was deemed unlawful by the Court; but as that led to the 2019 GE, I'd have thought you'd be grateful for that!

 

Personally, I am glad that our constitution means that the Prime Minister is subject to the law and so cannot overrule or ignore Parliament whenever they fear that Parliament will disagree with them.

 

Of course, any PM, or MP for that matter, has the power to introduce a Bill in an attempt to change the powers of the Court; or even do away with it altogether. 

 

If the court is as corrupt as you claim, one has to wonder why none have done so!

 

 

And with all that lousy footwork by T May your socalled sovereign Parliment didn't see fit to ditch her.

 

[transam]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Why did only 43.6% of voters vote for Boris?

 

Why did 53% vote for the promise of a referendum on the deal?

????.....You tell me, because I am not interested in your twaddle, I am sitting here smiling at your daily daft stuff because you lost your beloved EU...... ????

[kingdong]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

????.....You tell me, because I am not interested in your twaddle, I am sitting here smiling at your daily daft stuff because you lost your beloved EU...... ????

On your last point I,give the Eu about 3 years  before it tears itself apart

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

 

And with all that lousy footwork by T May your socalled sovereign Parliment didn't see fit to ditch her.

 

All good things come to those who wait.

[polpott]

17 minutes ago, transam said:

????.....You tell me, because I am not interested in your twaddle, I am sitting here smiling at your daily daft stuff because you lost your beloved EU...... ????

Not so much "lost" as stolen from us by a bunch of money grabbing Tory toffs. I'm sure they are grateful to you but not grateful enough to give you an annual rise to your state pension whilst you are sat smiling here in Thailand.

[transam]

6 minutes ago, kingdong said:

On your last point I,give the Eu about 3 years  before it tears itself apart

It does look like there's a lot of ruffled feathers in the remaining 27 "states"..

To me it has shown how very different folk are in Europe, thoughts, way of life, it just isn't working, except for those who are getting large handouts...????

[kingdong]

9 minutes ago, transam said:

It does look like there's a lot of ruffled feathers in the remaining 27 "states"..

To me it has shown how very different folk are in Europe, thoughts, way of life, it just isn't working, except for those who are getting large handouts...????

Wait till the remaining 27 remaining states are asked to pay more tax to make up for the uks lost contribution.