Surely now the reality has been shown of what no deal or May's universally unpopular deal is, it is only fair for the British people to decide if they really want this. Why are most (or all?) Leavers afraid to trust the people on this huge decision?
Surely now the reality has been shown of what no deal or May's universally unpopular deal is, it is only fair for the British people to decide if they really want this. Why are most (or all?) Leavers afraid to trust the people on this huge decision?
Because they know if we had another vote we would most likely vote to Remain. To them, delivering the JRM/Russian Hard Brexit is so precious they would deny the British people a say now the Faragist genie is out the bottle.
Surely then, for all the talk of 'traitors' and 'enemies of the people', these hard-core Leavers are the ones who could really damage the country because of a hell-bent ideology and poor understanding of the modern world.
Surely then, for all the talk of 'traitors' and 'enemies of the people', these hard-core Leavers are the ones who could really damage the country because of a hell-bent ideology and poor understanding of the modern world.
Yes, that is how more and more people are seeing it now. Look how JRM's wings have been unceremoniously clipped when revealed just what a farce his own plan turned out to be, as well as his stunning hypocrisy on the democracy angle.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
You have to consider you're dealing with a person who, when they were one of over a thousand parents heading into an area with 3 schools numbering nearly 3000 pupils, thought it was all the Poles and Greeks on the road to blame for the congestion.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
The GFA which you say 'sod' to was ratified by a UK referendum. It is and was you making the decision. Are you now running away from your leave vote then?
On another note you say you would have 'put up' a border which is honest and straightforward. Could you describe the details of this border you would have 'just' put up? Even if it is in your imagination at the moment?
One of the things that the Brexit vote has shown is that the UK education system needs to invest in people's ability to think critically but coherently. While it is perfectly justifiable to be unhappy with the EU or general aspects of modern life, to throw everything away because of tribalist thinking of good/bad figures and for people to not even be able to clearly express why they feel something is important beyond a basic gut reaction is worrying for the future of the country.
The UK of the past would never have been so successful and have produced so many innovators with such black and white thinking and inability to rationally defend a position. The current dismal crop of politicians have cynically fed into this with their endless dumbed down slogans and ridiculous promises of simple solutions to complex problems.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the t&pc's by David Cameron. 3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how it when.
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
1) Apart from those people already convicted e.g Darren Grimes, there is a mounting wealth of evidence and unaccounted for spending e.g. the illegal adverts online, the Cambridge Analytica illegal data-mining, the evidence now emerging that the shell company Banks used to bankroll the Leave campaigning was not properly registered, and the still unexplained injection of Russian millions into the Leave funding.
2) This is just plain false. Look at the legislation. There is no provision for a Leave result to bind Parliament. The High Court confirmed on 03/11/16 that the legislation meant the vote was only advisory and non-binding.
3) The Leave campaign campaigned on getting a better deal than we have now, they constantly talked about getting a Switzerland or Norway deal, and that a deal would be easy to strike and would be negotiated before we left the EU. Some Leave campaigners even stated they would be in favour of a second referendum to confirm the deal or if we would rather stay. No campaigners were talking of crashing out without a deal. So no, it is not "crap", these are the facts.
Furthermore, the electorate didn't vote to Leave. One third of the electorate voted to Leave.
You can't complain if you didn't vote. If you had the chance to vote & didn't then you have no right AT ALL to moan or have a say in how it's going.
We have a hard fought for right to vote in this country and it’s something that I believe means that you should vote when you get the chance. However the mere fact that you didn’t or couldn’t vote doesn’t mean that you have no rights or say in what happens. As it happens I know two people who didn’t vote in the referendum because they said that they didn’t know which of remaining or leaving was better so they chose not to vote. They didn’t feel qualified to make such an important choice. It transpires that 30 months down the line both would now vote remain because they now see which is without doubt the better choice.
Should these people not have the right to express their now informed view on proceedings ? Or not have the right to campaign to remain ?
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
Let’s hope car bombs don’t kill you or any one you care about. Then you’d be singing a different tune re GFA.
The original referendum asked an ambiguous "negative" question which is impossible to enact without further referendums to clarify.
Like asking "Should we spend more money on infrastructure". Well I might say "yes".
But that doesn't mean the government can knock down anybody's house without compensation to build a road and claim "It's the will of the people - there will be rioting if we don't do this".
Countries which have regular referendums don't ask stupid questions.
The original referendum asked an ambiguous "negative" question which is impossible to enact without further referendums to clarify.
Like asking "Should we spend more money on infrastructure". Well I might say "yes".
But that doesn't mean the government can knock down anybody's house without compensation to build a road and claim "It's the will of the people - there will be rioting if we don't do this".
Countries which have regular referendums don't ask stupid questions.
We lead the way in stupidity - referendum achieved nothing and merely demonstrated the country is divided.
You can't seriously vote for Brexit and then get upset when it becomes apparent nobody knows what they've voted for.
Hate referendums but, we need another. Not on our membership (although that's probably the only way out of the current mess). My proposal is a simple yes or no. 'Should the Conservative party be banned from ever governing the country again'.
The original referendum asked an ambiguous "negative" question which is impossible to enact without further referendums to clarify.
Like asking "Should we spend more money on infrastructure". Well I might say "yes".
But that doesn't mean the government can knock down anybody's house without compensation to build a road and claim "It's the will of the people - there will be rioting if we don't do this".
Countries which have regular referendums don't ask stupid questions.
Hence why this was an advisory/non-binding referendum. There was no roadmap to follow after a Leave vote.
Look at our previous referenda - AV and Scottish Independence. Both had clear, legally backed roadmaps to follow in the event of a vote to change the status quo.
Look at other countries who have frequent referenda - Switzerland for example. There are clearly outlined options and roadmaps to follow depending on the vote outcome.
Other countries also, sensibly, employ criteria such as super majorities or minimum turnouts for sweeping constitutional changes. They also don't gerrymander the electorate to deny the democratic rights to those British citizens who are entitled to a vote but live abroad, those who would be among those most affected by a Leave vote.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
Plenty of competition, but definitely contender for most twattish post ever!
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
The GFA which you say 'sod' to was ratified by a UK referendum. It is and was you making the decision. Are you now running away from your leave vote then?
On another note you say you would have 'put up' a border which is honest and straightforward. Could you describe the details of this border you would have 'just' put up? Even if it is in your imagination at the moment?
Seth. Not sure what relevance this has to the debate but, I was a bit surprised by a quote from a Northern Irish politician on the radio, saying that only 40% of the electorate in the North vote for the D.U.P. or Sinn Fein.
“The “think tank” is supposed to counter Russian online propaganda by forming “clusters” of friendly journalists and “key influencers” throughout Europe who use social media to hit back against disinformation.”
In b4 it’s revealed Russian troll farms do actually pump out pro Corbyn tweets, which if you look at the similarities in logic and vitriol with pro trump and pro Corbyn tweeters, I wouldn’t be surprised. So they were indeed doing their purpose, if not a bit dodgy.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
Plenty of competition, but definitely contender for most twattish post ever!
You do understand that the Counties of Northern Ireland are just as much part of the United Kingdom as Yorkshire or Kent ?
The people’s of those six counties would dearly love to see the continued peace that the GFA has provided and keep their loved ones safe from a return to the previous terrors. I might add that it’s also kept you a lot safer too.
Your comment is crass in the extreme and epitomises the ignorance shown to the situation by little Englanders who think that because there is the Irish Sea separating NI from the mainland it is somehow less important or relelevent than eg the Home Counties or Wales.
Suppose Corbyn dies suddenly and Umna gets elected leader. How would his stance on Brexit differ? A question for Labour supporting Remoaners only.
Well he’s got a stance for a start.
Labour is run by controlled by ultra left wing groups like Momentum and Len McCluskys Unite. Umunna has as much chance of getting the leadership nod as Nigel Farage.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
The GFA which you say 'sod' to was ratified by a UK referendum. It is and was you making the decision. Are you now running away from your leave vote then?
On another note you say you would have 'put up' a border which is honest and straightforward. Could you describe the details of this border you would have 'just' put up? Even if it is in your imagination at the moment?
Seth. Not sure what relevance this has to the debate but, I was a bit surprised by a quote from a Northern Irish politician on the radio, saying that only 40% of the electorate in the North vote for the D.U.P. or Sinn Fein.
I reckon Norn is your man for the details on this.
Uncle Rup making his position clear via his Scum outlet. A second referendum without Remain as an option (because it lost in 2016)!
Not a bad shout really. We should at least LEAVE before any 2nd vote. If not then take remain off the table & then see what the options are.
Again there is no precedent that the referendum result ought to be carried out before a confirmation vote.
And there are also the small matters of:
1) the electoral fraud that delivered the result 2) it being an explicitly non-binding referendum 3) the fact that No Deal was never discussed during the referendum and there is therefore no mandate for leaving the EU without a deal
As usual, if the S*n are advocating 1 thing, the proper and correct thing to do would be to do the opposite, considering it's a racist Anti-British rag of bile.
To answer your points;
1) There is no actual proof of fraud....so until the SFO or the police bring a case this is a non issue
2) I heard somewhere recently (Politics Live on BBC2 I think) that is was most definitely binding & was written into the terms by David Cameron.
3) just plain crap. NO DEALS AT ALL were discussed during the Referendum. We were asked if we wanted to leave or stay. Not how or when. Leave means leave....by whatever measure the UK Government decides
You can keep trying to dodge the issue as much as you like but it's as clear as day. In June 2016 the electorate voted to leave & Article 50 is in law. We leave on the 29th of March 2019. The only way that can be stopped is by an Act of Parliament.
Btw. Norway plus is a disaster waiting yo happen. Even worse than TM's deal. We get to stay in the CU, keep free movement of people AND pay money for the privilege. Wtf ??
If any of the new "deals" being bandied about should be considered then Canada +++ is probably the best. Failing that then leave with no deal.
Have your leave, nobody is stopping you. As you knew what you were voting for all you need to do is provide a workable solution for the practicalities on the newly created physical borders between the UK and the EU. Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
I haven't had 2 odd years.....not me making the decision mate. I woukd have just put up a border. Our country...our laws. Sod the GFA.
Over & out.
Plenty of competition, but definitely contender for most twattish post ever!
This is unfair and uncalled for.
I totally disagree with the suggestion @golfaddick has posted. Because it's ill-informed, unsustainable, dangerous and inflammatory. But he's perfectly entitled to his opinion, however harmful it might be.
This is one of the problems about Brexit and about the referendum itself. It grants three types of people exactly the same amount of power, ie one vote. One type of person is someone well-informed, with a full and detailed grasp of all the issues, facts and implications around leaving the EU and how it should be done, if at all. The second type - and I would say Golfie is one of many such type on this thread - is an honest voter, but someone who is clear on their intention (leave or remain), but sanguine as to how it's achieved or the poor effect it will have. And the third, is a dishonest voter, intent on influencing more voters with their lies, dissembling, obfuscation and deceit. The third type includes Farage, Rees-Mogg, Davis and others.
That's the problem. Whether you rely on facts (type 1), feelings (type 2) or you're a liar (type 3) you get a vote. And worse still, type 3s get to influence the largest number of people; type 2s get to spout simple, unfiltered feelings and are never held to account for the problems those feelings exacerbate; and type 1s are marginalised.
Anyway, the point is this - Golfie is allowed to hold ridiculous and harmful opinions and to share them. But it would be interesting to see if he can justify the obvious (surely..?) harm those opinions would cause.
Macron the EU's pin up boy hiding somewhere while riots going on in Paris, also trouble in Brussels and Marseilles. Jeremy on working/holiday in Portugal. All going so well for the Remainers! Bring on another vote!
Comments
Need to get a move on as you have had two and a half years already.
Over & out.
It is and was you making the decision.
Are you now running away from your leave vote then?
On another note you say you would have 'put up' a border which is honest and straightforward. Could you describe the details of this border you would have 'just' put up? Even if it is in your imagination at the moment?
The UK of the past would never have been so successful and have produced so many innovators with such black and white thinking and inability to rationally defend a position. The current dismal crop of politicians have cynically fed into this with their endless dumbed down slogans and ridiculous promises of simple solutions to complex problems.
Should these people not have the right to express their now informed view on proceedings ? Or not have the right to campaign to remain ?
Like asking "Should we spend more money on infrastructure". Well I might say "yes".
But that doesn't mean the government can knock down anybody's house without compensation to build a road and claim "It's the will of the people - there will be rioting if we don't do this".
Countries which have regular referendums don't ask stupid questions.
You can't seriously vote for Brexit and then get upset when it becomes apparent nobody knows what they've voted for.
Can't see how this will be resolved....
Not on our membership (although that's probably the only way out of the current mess).
My proposal is a simple yes or no.
'Should the Conservative party be banned from ever governing the country again'.
Look at our previous referenda - AV and Scottish Independence. Both had clear, legally backed roadmaps to follow in the event of a vote to change the status quo.
Look at other countries who have frequent referenda - Switzerland for example. There are clearly outlined options and roadmaps to follow depending on the vote outcome.
Other countries also, sensibly, employ criteria such as super majorities or minimum turnouts for sweeping constitutional changes. They also don't gerrymander the electorate to deny the democratic rights to those British citizens who are entitled to a vote but live abroad, those who would be among those most affected by a Leave vote.
Not sure what relevance this has to the debate but, I was a bit surprised by a quote from a Northern Irish politician on the radio, saying that only 40% of the electorate in the North vote for the D.U.P. or Sinn Fein.
In b4 it’s revealed Russian troll farms do actually pump out pro Corbyn tweets, which if you look at the similarities in logic and vitriol with pro trump and pro Corbyn tweeters, I wouldn’t be surprised. So they were indeed doing their purpose, if not a bit dodgy.
You do understand that the Counties of Northern Ireland are just as much part of the United Kingdom as Yorkshire or Kent ?
The people’s of those six counties would dearly love to see the continued peace that the GFA has provided and keep their loved ones safe from a return to the previous terrors. I might add that it’s also kept you a lot safer too.
Your comment is crass in the extreme and epitomises the ignorance shown to the situation by little Englanders who think that because there is the Irish Sea separating NI from the mainland it is somehow less important or relelevent than eg the Home Counties or Wales.
Labour is run by controlled by ultra left wing groups like Momentum and Len McCluskys Unite. Umunna has as much chance of getting the leadership nod as Nigel Farage.
I totally disagree with the suggestion @golfaddick has posted. Because it's ill-informed, unsustainable, dangerous and inflammatory. But he's perfectly entitled to his opinion, however harmful it might be.
This is one of the problems about Brexit and about the referendum itself. It grants three types of people exactly the same amount of power, ie one vote. One type of person is someone well-informed, with a full and detailed grasp of all the issues, facts and implications around leaving the EU and how it should be done, if at all. The second type - and I would say Golfie is one of many such type on this thread - is an honest voter, but someone who is clear on their intention (leave or remain), but sanguine as to how it's achieved or the poor effect it will have. And the third, is a dishonest voter, intent on influencing more voters with their lies, dissembling, obfuscation and deceit. The third type includes Farage, Rees-Mogg, Davis and others.
That's the problem. Whether you rely on facts (type 1), feelings (type 2) or you're a liar (type 3) you get a vote. And worse still, type 3s get to influence the largest number of people; type 2s get to spout simple, unfiltered feelings and are never held to account for the problems those feelings exacerbate; and type 1s are marginalised.
Anyway, the point is this - Golfie is allowed to hold ridiculous and harmful opinions and to share them. But it would be interesting to see if he can justify the obvious (surely..?) harm those opinions would cause.
riots going on in Paris, also trouble in Brussels and Marseilles.
Jeremy on working/holiday in Portugal.
All going so well for the Remainers!
Bring on another vote!