Jump to content


Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

Vaati

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Vaati

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

.Because 52% is greater than 48%.

That is only those who bothered to turn out for Cameron’s referendum. That’s not really rejecting remaining in the EU, given that before, during and after the referendum, the majority of our citizens wish to remain.

 

By your logic, Labour should not be allowed to stand in the upcoming election because it was rejected in 2017. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lockdoctor said:

I'm not arguing for another referendum or for no-deal to be on any referendum ballot paper.  There is no justification for Remain to be on any referendum ballot paper because that option was rejected by our democratic people in 2016. However, if a referendum took place on how our country is going to leave the EU then there would be no justification for no-deal not to be on the ballot paper. Just to make my position perfectly clear I don't support any new referendum because I respect the result of the democratic 2016 EU Referendum and support that result to be implemented either with the new Withdrawal Agreement on offer or by way of  no-deal which is the default legal position  as a consequence of Parliament overwhelmingly voting to trigger Article 50 before the 2017 General Election.

 

Regarding the Benn Act  surely that act ceases to apply after the EU make their decision about whether to extend Article 50 beyond 31st October.

Your position about a further referendum is noted, but remains redundant, because the law is what it is, and your opinion doesn't trump it. Nothing contentious here, just stating an obvious fact.

 

The Benn Act will apply to the next extension, no differently to how it applies to the current extension to 31 October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

They would want a General Election if they respected democracy because 80%  of voters chose Parties who had manifestos to implement the EU 2016 Referendum result when they voted in the 2017 General Election.

 

The opposition alliance are not acting in our country's interest because all they seek to do is block the implementation of the 2016 EU Referendum result and continue the uncertainty. 

 

 

I think I’ve grasped your position now.

 

You don’t like the result of the democratic General Election of 2017, so you’d like another vote now, despite the fact that the parliament still has three years to run.

 

You do like the result of the 2016 EU referendum, so you oppose another vote on that.

 

Some would say that your position is a touch hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That is only those who bothered to turn out for Cameron’s referendum. That’s not really rejecting remaining in the EU, given that before, during and after the referendum, the majority of our citizens wish to remain.

 

By your logic, Labour should not be allowed to stand in the upcoming election because it was rejected in 2017. 🙄

That is hilarious given the fact  more UK people turned out to vote in the democratic 2016 EU Referendum than any other national vote in UK history.

 

No, it's your double Dutch logic that says Labour should not stand in the upcoming General Election.  A referendum on one single issue is not the same as a General Election which has to happen at least ever 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Strathclyde University’s John Curtice, the ‘polling guru’ said earlier this year that it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that in another referendum, Remain could win with 65-70% of the vote.

I think you will find  him stating it is still narrow and around remain 52%-48% leave and the change from leave to remain and remain to leave being fairly equal at around 8%. I have posted the detail before but here they are again.

 

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/author/johncurtice/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I think I’ve grasped your position now.

 

You don’t like the result of the democratic General Election of 2017, so you’d like another vote now, despite the fact that the parliament still has three years to run.'s

 

You do like the result of the 2016 EU referendum, so you oppose another vote on that.

 

Some would say that your position is a touch hypocritical.

I have never stated I don't like or respect the result of the 2017 General Election.  It's  normal for there to be another General Election after a ruling party loses their working majority in Parliament.  It's only because of the recent  new fixed term Parliament Act that the opposition alliance can block a General Election being held. The intention of the fixed term Parliament Act wasn't to allow the opposition parties to block whatever the Government wants to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

I have never stated I don't like or respect the result of the 2017 General Election.  It's  normal for there to be another General Election after a ruling party loses their working majority in Parliament.  It's only because of the recent  new fixed term Parliament Act that the opposition alliance can block a General Election being held. The intention of the fixed term Parliament Act wasn't to allow the opposition parties to block whatever the Government wants to do. 

A weak government that can only pass sensible legislation, is exactly what this country needs at the moment.

 

We need more consensus and less extremism.


A Corbyn, or Johnson government with a large majority, would be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Albert the Cat said:

Who do you think implements the practicalities of an election? It isn’t the government, it is the electoral commission. If the electoral commission says it cannot be carried out because they don’t have enough polling stations then it will not be. 

And have they stated that... no!

 

6 hours ago, Albert the Cat said:

I never said that the disruption of the school curriculum was the primary concern in taking over a school. Just join the dots here, it’s a school and it’s Christmas. 

And that makes a difference how as the curriculum is still followed regardless so having one day off would hardly cause problems. Seems that people want to drum up and make excuses when there is none.

 

6 hours ago, Albert the Cat said:

I personally know about the opt out. I use it myself and because of it I sit nicely in the top 5% of earners. The point is that it is there and is used for workers’ protection. 

And the point I was making is that employers can easily get around it.

 

6 hours ago, Albert the Cat said:

Edit: forgot to mention, yes you do not understand democracy when you continuously bang on about the MPs not carrying out the “will of the people”. MPs do not have to, there is no such mandate, the “will of the people” is not delegated to them to implement. 

I think you have me confused with another poster as that is not what I have been continuously saying. Having said that I have said many times on here and also just recently that its parliament that make the decisions and not the people so it follows that I actually agree with you. You are getting confused somewhere down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the 52/48 thing again, please! :rolleyes:

 

In the neverending repeat of this argument, and the underlying sentiment which only-very-slowly shifting sides of the debate (as polled over the last 3 years) reflect, we have the perfect explanation of why Brexit is a mess: a significant proportion of Brits do not want out of Europe, and for those who do, there is no single definition of what the "Europe" is, that they want out of.

 

To take a very recent example: Thomas Cook. Tens of thousands of Brits were quite happy to spend their GBPs on airlines benefiting from EASA regulation of their aircraft, flying through European Air Traffic Control, benefiting from EU-directed consumer protection regulation, to visit another EU country, visa-free, where they could use their mobile phones under EU-directed "at home" tariffs, protected by at least an EHIC in case of injury, but possibly also travel insurance subject to the same guarantees in "Europe" as GB, and eating food prepared in catering establishments that had been certified safe according to the same standards as any eatery in their local High Street. If they were unfortunate enough to be the victim of crime, they could have counted on the mutual recognition of security protocols and legal decisions. And at the end of their trip, they were free to bring back to the UK just about anything they'd bought, borrowed or found without fear of prosecution.

Which part of all that so angers the Brits, that they want to trash their relationship with 27 other countries on the European continent? 

It is utterly pointless arguing in favour of anything Brexity on the grounds that "the people voted to leave", until you've answered the question "Leave what?"

 

And given that,  if there's even one Leaver who says "this is not what I voted for in 2016" then it calls into question the whole vote.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

A weak government that can only pass sensible legislation, is exactly what this country needs at the moment.

 

We need more consensus and less extremism.


A Corbyn, or Johnson government with a large majority, would be a disaster.

You've lost the plot.  General Elections decide which party or parties are our Government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

You've lost the plot.  General Elections decide which party or parties are our Government. 

They don’t, you know. They help, but that’s about it

 

Any chance of you conversing without all the “That is hilarious “ or “You’ve lost  the plot” stuff.  It is a bit juvenile 

Edited by Pettytom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.