'It'll be carnage': British companies dread a Brexit border breakdown

[7by7]

11 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It's not about right and wrong ........... democracy is about the will of the people.

 

Sometimes the will of the people is wrong; as in the 1932 German parliamentary elections when the largest share of the vote went to the Nazis!

 

I am not comparing Brexit with Nazi Germany; though many Brexiteers have tried to do just that with the EU!

[7by7]

10 hours ago, vogie said:

<snip>

It is not a suggestion, but a statement. You can deny as much as you like 'Ray' but you know as well as I do that without the inactions of our parliamentary remainers, we would not be where we are today.

Strangely you mention the ERG but fail to mention the Labour, SNP and the Lib/Dem Parties. Basically by wanting to deny what the country had voted for, they missed the boat called 'I don't Believe in Democracy'

 

Yet again we have the Brexiteer self contradiction.

 

You all said at the time that May was a Remainer and her deal was Brexit in name only. 

 

Yet you all also complained then and still complain that Parliament at that time thwarted that deal because they were all Remainers!

 

The opposition parties voted against May's deal because they believed her deal was wrong; but so did you Brexiteers! You all said so; many times!

 

Which is all very confusing.

 

Can clarify it for us? Was May following the will of the people and was thwarted by a Remainer Parliament; or was she sabotaging the will of the people and was thwarted by a Brexit Parliament? It's got to be one or the other!

 

I wont bother quoting or responding to the rest of your post as the only response is to repeat what I have already said above and ask the same question.

 

Not that I expect an answer; Brexiteers always ignore the difficult questions!

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Loiner said:

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Only a remainer would swallow that lot.

Maybe that's what he does every Sunday with his truckers

 Don't assume everyone else shares your pastime.

[Loiner]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 Don't assume everyone else shares your pastime.

Ask your Sunday guzzling Euro mate. It's his idea for a Remainer party.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Only if you believe that a country should be governed by referendum.

 

Governments do the governing but not always well, so I see nothing wrong in them asking for the electorate to help with issues of great national importance from time to time.

 

The Swiss do it quite frequently - always runs like clockwork - what's wrong with that.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Yet again we have the Brexiteer self contradiction.

 

You all said at the time that May was a Remainer and her deal was Brexit in name only. 

 

Yet you all also complained then and still complain that Parliament at that time thwarted that deal because they were all Remainers!

 

The opposition parties voted against May's deal because they believed her deal was wrong; but so did you Brexiteers! You all said so; many times!

 

Which is all very confusing.

 

Can clarify it for us? Was May following the will of the people and was thwarted by a Remainer Parliament; or was she sabotaging the will of the people and was thwarted by a Brexit Parliament? It's got to be one or the other!

 

I wont bother quoting or responding to the rest of your post as the only response is to repeat what I have already said above and ask the same question.

 

Not that I expect an answer; Brexiteers always ignore the difficult questions!

 

The opposition parties voted against May's deal because they thought that they wanted a GE.

[Rookiescot]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Governments do the governing but not always well, so I see nothing wrong in them asking for the electorate to help with issues of great national importance from time to time.

 

The Swiss do it quite frequently - always runs like clockwork - what's wrong with that.

And yet you do not want another referendum on either the Brexit deal or Scottish independence.

So the government should only give referendums on issues which you agree with.

[Rookiescot]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The opposition parties voted against May's deal because they thought that they wanted a GE.

So why did the ERG keep voting against it?

[RayC]

11 hours ago, vogie said:

You couldn't make this up: You are basically suggesting that he inability of successive UK governments to (seemingly) deliver an amicable divorce from the EU is the fault of Remainers, who didn't want the divorce in the first place.

It is not a suggestion, but a statement. You can deny as much as you like 'Ray' but you know as well as I do that without the inactions of our parliamentary remainers, we would not be where we are today.

 

.... and it is an incorrect statement. No "Vogie",  I do not know (or agree) "...that without the inactions of our parliamentary remainers, we would not be where we are today." (see below).

 

11 hours ago, vogie said:

Strangely you mention the ERG but fail to mention the Labour, SNP and the Lib/Dem Parties.

 

You refuse to accept the simple arithmetic FACT that the combined votes of ALL opposition parties in the 2015 - 17 parliament would not have been enough to defeat the government if Tory MPs did not rebel. Therefore, divisions within the Tory party (notably the ERG) was the main problem coupled with an inept leadership.

 

11 hours ago, vogie said:

 

The truth of the matter is that this current fiasco is a creation - and failure - of the Tory party: Cameron gambled and called an unnecessary referendum. 

Just because you deem the referendum "unnecessary" it doesn't make it so, the country thought otherwise or would not have voted to leave.

 

You are correct that the fact that I believe that the referendum was "..'unnessary' doesn't make it so..". However in a similar vein, that you believe the referendum was 'necessary' equally doesn't make it so. Both are opinion: No more, no less.

 

The result of the referendum is (logically) completely independent and doesn't justify its necessity, so this is an empty statement.

 

11 hours ago, vogie said:

 

If the remainers were a little less selfish they would understand how democracy works

 

I'm well aware how democracy works. If only you understood that the winning side in a democracy has an obligation to govern on behalf of all the population -  not just its supporters - and that part of having a democratic mandate to govern is the burden of accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately, it's a burden that you seem unwilling and/or unable to acknowledge and accept.

 

11 hours ago, vogie said:

 

So no matter how much you deny that your remainer parliament had nothing to do with where we are today the more the proverbial ostrich head gets deeper into the sand. Time to accept the massive part and responsibility that the remainers played in our extrication of our partnership with the EU, so well done.

 

 

There is no logical basis for believing this conclusion. It is based upon a false premise and a false argument. In short, it's just incorrect!

[vogie]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

I'm well aware how democracy works. If only you understood that the winning side in a democracy has an obligation to govern on behalf of all the population -  not just its supporters - and that part of having a democratic mandate to govern is the burden of accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately, it's a burden that you seem unwilling and/or unable to acknowledge and accept.

But you have no idea how democracy works, you are a remainer and you wanted to deny the referendum result like many other remainers on here. The remainers in parliament were never happy to compromise, they wanted to overturn the 'democratic' will of the country, and through the remainers selfishness and deviousness you could have suceeded, thank the British public for seeing through their underhandedness, the likes of Lammy, Greive and Cable having clandestine meetings with the EU behind the governments back, totally disgracefull and it is tantamount to treason.

But isn't it a great relief to be not having continuous extensions and never ending meaningfull votes, we are well on our way to get what the country voted for 'Ray' and that is 'Democracy'

But I know like another poster on here, you are always correct.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Governments do the governing but not always well, so I see nothing wrong in them asking for the electorate to help with issues of great national importance from time to time.

 

I agree that there is nothing intrinsically theoretically wrong with referendums; indeed, it can be argued that it is one of the 'purest' forms of democracy.

 

However, imo there are no end of practical problems in the context of a parliamentary democracy like the UK. For example, what are the criteria for triggering a referendum? (You mention when governments are not governing well. Who decides this?) When (How often) should referendums be held? 

 

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

The Swiss do it quite frequently - always runs like clockwork - what's wrong with that.

They do but it is much smaller country and a federation, therefore a lot different constitutionally than the UK.

[evadgib]

The phrase you're looking for is 'losers (????) consent'.

[RayC]

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

But you have no idea how democracy works, you are a remainer and you wanted to deny the referendum result like many other remainers on here. The remainers in parliament were never happy to compromise, they wanted to overturn the 'democratic' will of the country, and through the remainers selfishness and deviousness you could have suceeded, thank the British public for seeing through their underhandedness, the likes of Lammy, Greive and Cable having clandestine meetings with the EU behind the governments back, totally disgracefull and it is tantamount to treason.

But isn't it a great relief to be not having continuous extensions and never ending meaningfull votes, we are well on our way to get what the country voted for 'Ray' and that is 'Democracy'

But I know like another poster on here, you are always correct.

So 'Vogie', only Brexiters can understand - and have sole claim on - democracy? Glad we sorted that out.

 

The remainder (oops!) of your post offers proof - if it were needed - that you take no responsibility or accountability for 'managing' the implementation and effects of an outcome which you support. It's everyone's fault, but the people in charge i.e. your preferred government.

[evadgib]

32 minutes ago, RayC said:

So 'Vogie', only Brexiters can understand - and have sole claim on - democracy? Glad we sorted that out.

 

The remainder (oops!) of your post offers proof - if it were needed - that you take no responsibility or accountability for 'managing' the implementation and effects of an outcome which you support. It's everyone's fault, but the people in charge i.e. your preferred government.

The remainers preferred candidate in last years election has just lost the whip! ????

Edited October 29, 2020 by evadgib

[RayC]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Your preferred candidate in last years election has just lost the whip! ????

You have no idea - and could not hazard an informed guess based on my TVF postings - who was my preferred candidate in last year's Labour party election. Still, when has the lack of any supporting evidence mattered to (most) Brexiters?

 

NB: Between you and me, it wasn't Corbyn.????

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

You have no idea - and could not hazard an informed guess based on my TVF postings - who was my preferred candidate in last year's Labour party election. Still, when has the lack of any supporting evidence mattered to (most) Brexiters?

 

NB: Between you and me, it wasn't Corbyn.????

Swanson? That's even better! 

[evadgib]

Back on topic:

Quote

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss delivers the keynote speech at Chatham House’s ‘Global Trade Live’ event setting out her vision for UK trade policy

Chatham House speech: Liz Truss sets out vision for values-driven free trade

[vogie]

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

So 'Vogie', only Brexiters can understand - and have sole claim on - democracy? Glad we sorted that out.

 

The remainder (oops!) of your post offers proof - if it were needed - that you take no responsibility or accountability for 'managing' the implementation and effects of an outcome which you support. It's everyone's fault, but the people in charge i.e. your preferred government.

Get to grips with what our country voted for and not what you personally want to happen and you might begin to understand democracy. You don't have a case!

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

And yet you do not want another referendum on either the Brexit deal or Scottish independence.

So the government should only give referendums on issues which you agree with.

 

I used the example of the UK and Switzerland but referendums occur far less frequently in the UK. I think only 6 years is too soon for a vote on the same question, yes.

 

What I personally agree with does not matter. I am sure that any government would not ask for my individual blessing for any referendum. 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

So why did the ERG keep voting against it?

 

Because they had read it!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I agree that there is nothing intrinsically theoretically wrong with referendums; indeed, it can be argued that it is one of the 'purest' forms of democracy.

 

However, imo there are no end of practical problems in the context of a parliamentary democracy like the UK. For example, what are the criteria for triggering a referendum? (You mention when governments are not governing well.

 

 

 

They do but it is much smaller country and a federation, therefore a lot different constitutionally than the UK.

 

Criteria?                           How about EU membership as a benchmark?

Who decides this?         The Gov of the day.

When (How often)?       As infrequently as reasonably practical.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, Loiner said:

Ask your Sunday guzzling Euro mate. 

 Who's that, then?

 

4 hours ago, Loiner said:

It's his idea for a Remainer party.

You're the one who seems keen on it!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

You have no idea - and could not hazard an informed guess based on my TVF postings - who was my preferred candidate in last year's Labour party election. Still, when has the lack of any supporting evidence mattered to (most) Brexiters?

 

NB: Between you and me, it wasn't Corbyn.????

 

I see Corbyn's just had the nidge from Starmer:

 

Jeremy Corbyn to fight suspension from Labour after EHRC antisemitism report comments – politics live

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/oct/29/uk-politics-live-ehrc-to-publish-report-into-labour-and-antisemitism

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

The opposition parties voted against May's deal because they thought that they wanted a GE.

 Whenever a Remainer makes a statement like that, the Brexiteer response is along the lines of "What? Are you privy to what they thought?"

 

But you haven't answered the question. 

 

Neither has @vogie, to whom it was addressed, nor any other Brexiteer.

 

No surprise there; you lot always ignore the difficult questions.

 

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

<snip>

But you have no idea how democracy works, you are a remainer and you wanted to deny the referendum result like many other remainers on here.

 

Because back in 2016 no one in the Leave campaign would say exactly what Brexit would mean, other than beer and skittles for all, and all the warnings from the Remain side were dismissed as "Project Fear," what most Remainers and even some Brexiteers here in the UK wanted was a referendum on whether or not the withdrawal agreement and final deal were acceptable.

 

That WA and deal are both issues of vital national importance, and I agree with nauseus when he said

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

I see nothing wrong in them asking for the electorate to help with issues of great national importance

 

Of course, had we had a referendum on Johnson's self proclaimed triumph of a deal and had it been accepted by the majority, he'd be in a bit of a tiswas now he wants to renege on it!

 

Be interesting to see how Cummings would sell that one; Boris signed the WA as some form of eye test, maybe!

[7by7]

48 minutes ago, nauseus said:

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

So why did the ERG keep voting against it?

 

Because they had read it!

 

Which brings us full circle back to the Brexiteer self contradiction.

 

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Was May following the will of the people and was thwarted by a Remainer Parliament; or was she sabotaging the will of the people and was thwarted by a Brexit Parliament? It's got to be one or the other!

 Any answer?

[RayC]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Get to grips with what our country voted for and not what you personally want to happen and you might begin to understand democracy. You don't have a case!

It's probably best that we park this discussion. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp the concepts of accountability and responsibility. I wouldn't presume to know which it is. 

[nauseus]

51 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Whenever a Remainer makes a statement like that, the Brexiteer response is along the lines of "What? Are you privy to what they thought?"

 

But you haven't answered the question. 

 

Neither has @vogie, to whom it was addressed, nor any other Brexiteer.

 

No surprise there; you lot always ignore the difficult questions.

 

 

 

I was disputing your comment that ' the opposition parties voted against May's deal because they believed her deal was wrong' - not answering your strange question.

 

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Who's that, then?

 

You're the one who seems keen on it!

It’s only a short chain, why didn’t you look who started it when you jumped into it?

 

You’re the one who won’t let it go. A strange obsession. Hey look, you’ve got some of that poster’s egg on your face now. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Criteria?                           How about EU membership as a benchmark?

Who decides this?         The Gov of the day.

When (How often)?       As infrequently as reasonably practical.

 Were the electorate as a whole (Remainers and Leavers) more informed than MPs when it came to the pros and cons of Brexit? If they were, they shouldn't have been. After all, we elect politicans to make informed decisions on our behalf. 

 

Although we probably disagree about who is responsible, I assume that we agree that the referendum result has caused an enormous divide in UK society? I would contend that if the decision to leave had been made by government, it would not have opened such a schism, although I accept that this is pure conjecture.