No, I am not! I wouldn't dream of taking your job in the thread.
Yeah, when you need to resort such hyperbole it should be a clue that your point is rubbish. Whether you think otherwise or not many voters will not tolerate theirs or other's votes being ignored. Why do you think parliament has ploughed on with Brexit despite pretty much every single MP, aside from a few headbangers, thinking it is a bad idea? And if ignoring the vote was so easy why haven't Lab come out against it?
Of course you, to think otherwise wouldn't fit with your anti-Tory bias.
How does the rise of UKIP who got 12.6% of the vote in 2015 on the back of a single issue - leaving the European Union, fit into this little story? Whether you want to acknowledge it or not anti-EU sentiment was growing in the UK and if the Cons had not offered a referendum on our membership, and don't forget Miliband was offering his own wishy-washy referendum, do you think that UKIP support would have increased or they would have just forgotten all about it?
There is rising sentiment about any number of things. The under-investment in the NHS. Rail fares. The school funding crisis. Any one of those could have been put to a nationwide vote, but yet they weren't. Why do you think that was, exactly?
Because none of them were an existential crisis for the Tory party.
Can you remember any other time when the Tories gave us a referendum on anything? Even when the country was facing significant decisions? It doesn't happen, because they are quite happy doing whatever the hell they want. Cameron gave us the vote in this instance because he expected to win handily, and thought that would tamp down on the anti Europeans in his party. That was why he did it. He may well have hoped that it would staunch the flow of voters to UKIP at the same time, but party was his primary concern.
And why do I think Parliament have pushed on with Brexit? Because cancelling it at an earlier stage would have damaged the Tory party. Which part of that is too complicated for you to get? They took the least damaging path for their own party, until they ended up with a deal that they hoped would be least damaging for their party; enough of a Brexit to not upset that faction, not so much as to upset the Remain crowd. The trouble is, everybody hates it, and it will STILL be more damaging to the country than staying in. Which leaves us with the next choice; no deal, or no Brexit. You feel free to continue to believe they will be making that call based on what's best for the country. Clearly nothing I can say will sway you from that.
When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
Originally Posted by George CarlinOriginally Posted by Douglas Adams
Still not so sure about that. A lot will depend on the ECJ ruling for starters, but even with that things could just get too chaotic.
Much of it tainted in the eyes of many people by the trustworthiness of the sources. I don't trust the Treasury or the Bank of England one iota when it comes to this, and the former MPC head at the BoE, Mervyn King, came out strongly against Carney for his Project Fear shenanigans recently.
Will there be time though? Especially with the threat of a General Election, an actual Tory party coup and such...
= = =
We won. Deal with it.
t. Obama
No. We've wasted 2 years and a shit-ton of money trying to sabotage it.
Well you don't, seeing as you're trying to delegitimise the most recent referendum we've had.
Take it from a lifelong Tory voter: the Tories will be decimated by cancelling Brexit. It'll take them a generation to recover.
You've never been to northern England, have you? Hint: Maggie Thatcher.
= = =
From what I understand, this isn't legally binding. Dangerous to ignore, but not legally binding.
= = =
Well quite. Davis resigned over the fact that the DExEU job was a sham from day 1. He repeatedly said he was sidelined and left with nothing to do by Number 10 and the civil service, and now Treasonous May's confirmed as much.
= = =
No, he's just unhappy with UKIP getting chummy with people like Tommy Robinson & being more anti-Islamic. Farage has always been more of a civic nationalist, and this is a big misstep from him. The left doesn't give a damn if he distances himself from UKIP now - he'll still be Mr Evil Racist Sexist Nazi, so all he's done is shoot himself in the foot.
AFAIK he's staying in the UK to continue his media career though.
Still not tired of winning.
Would it possibly be because we vote the government in to take these decisions for us? Or maybe even if the public were given the opportunity to vote on NHS or school funding they would all vote in favour but this wouldn't actually produce the money needed? Did you forget that Labour spent it all?
Yeah, in 2011 they gave us a referendum on alternative voting. If this was solely a Con issue, as you are trying portray, then why was UKIP support increasing? Why didn't people reject the idea of holding a referendum? Why did 33.6m people turn out to vote? Why did 56% of Labour constituencies vote to leave? It seems very much like this was a UK issue to me.
Parliament pushed on with Brexit because they didn't want to damage the Tory party? Really? Is this the same Parliament which contains the Labour party which has no real policies apart from everything the government does is shit? Are you seriously suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn sat his MPs down and said "Listen guys don't do anything that might damage the Conservative Party."?
Of course the deal May is proposing is more damaging than remaining this is the reality of leave winning the referendum, every deal was going to worse than remaining. I mean apart from Corbyn's. Obviously. Whatever that might be today.
- - - Updated - - -
We will not leave on WTO terms regardless of the ECJ ruling.
That's as may be. However MPs for ignore the risks would be for them to act against the interests of the country and whilst they can use the referendum result to justify a couple percentage points lower growth they simply cannot ignore the risks of double digit percentage drops or 6-10% increases in food prices.
They will extend the A50 notice period. The EU know that parliament will not allow no deal and that May's deal will not pass, the ball is firmly in their court and all they have to do is wait it out.
- - - Updated - - -
This might seem more credible had Davis not been content to go along with it for the best part of two years.
Face it Davis, like Gove, like Johnson, sold you and your fellow leave voters down the river and when it looked like they might left holding the can they jumped ship.
You mean hold people accountable for their actions? What a novel idea!
To them, anyway. *sigh*
- - - Updated - - -
You still don't fathom the utter incompetence, stupidity and selfishness of your average MP, do you?
In summary of today...
What utter lying bastards... the Northern Ireland Secretary going on about how she talked to people in NI and they said they wanted Brexit? Has she only selectively talked to the Unionists? Because NI clearly isn't all that keen on Brexit as she makes it out to be. This is criminal. Heads should roll for this type of blatant lying.
Last edited by Slant; 2018-12-04 at 11:47 PM.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
Has the Withdrawal Act been repealed? Nope didn't think so, all on course for a no deal.
Isn't it a shame the primary legislation required to do that takes such a loooooooooooooong time? Three readings, House of Lords scrutiny and so on and so on.
Tick tock!
13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"
Realistically, she enacted A50 for political reasons, same reason Cameron staged the referendum in the first place. May was afraid of a leadership spill, Cameron was afraid of UKIP splitting the conservative vote. None of these decisions were made with the best interests of Britain or its ability to negotiate a better position for itself in mind, but rather sheer partisan short term gain and political cowardice.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh good point, lies are fine then and we should believe them and make decisions on their basis.
What makes you think they would need to repeal the Withdrawal Act rather than amending the date on which we leave? I'd guess that it could be amended in an afternoon or two.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, yes, those political reasons were the 17.4million who voted to leave the EU. Once the result to leave was announced the government had no other option than to serve A50 notice.
I figure that as PM you could expect the ones in critical positions to actually do what they're supposed to be doing, and if they for some reason don't blame them for not doing their job, but apparently May is neither doing her job nor expecting others to do theirs. So at least she is consistent.
Honestly, if it came out that she'd planned to sabotage Brexit by losing that GE I wouldn't be surprised at this point.
Hmm. I think the government would've made a lot more preparations for WTO rules, and you're right there would've been a lot more strident anti-EU noise and such, but I'm not sure we'd have just not done much negotiating. BoJo, the Mogg etc all want good access to the EU's markets, but they'd have been negotiating for a free trade deal, not a customs union & all the loss of sovereignty in Treasonous May's deal. How successful that would've been I'm sure we can all argue about until the cows come home, but at least I think we'd have made it to this point without this kind of chaos. A BoJo/ERG deal probably wouldn't be dead in the water with 4 months to go, and we simply wouldn't care what the ECJ was about to rule WRT halting A50.
Still not tired of winning.
What amendment? Every MP has their own version of what they want from brexit, there is no majority for any single one.
The withrawal act is now the law having receieved royal assent, we leave March 2019 with or without a deal. That is binding, any amendment is not, the government can ignore it.
Primary legislation is required to change that, which only the government can introduce. And they won't.
It is Maybots deal, and we know where that is headed on Tuesday, or no deal.
Tick tock.
13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"
In May's case, the reason was she was covering her ass so she wouldn't get ousted, and in Cameron's it was fear of UKIP eroding the Tory vote. Cameron thought he could have his cake and eat it too - he'd propose a referendum, thereby stealing the majority of UKIP's platform, but nobody would be stupid enough to vote Leave so there'd be no consequences. He resigned in disgrace when that blew up in his face spectacularly.
And there's always been another option. The referendum isn't binding. Call off Brexit and take the hit to your popularity and career, clearly it's the right thing for the UK. But of course none of them would do that.
Or in Cameron's case, continue to allow the UKIP to split the conservative vote and accept a loss. UKIP would never have the numbers to push a referendum if both main parties refused to make it a policy.
Yes it is, hard for foreigners to understand I know, but this makes it binding.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...tion/1/enacted
13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"
FYI chapter 9 subsection 1 of the act gives ministers powers to add, modify, repeal articles of the act in order to aid a withdrawal upto the changes which would otherwise require an act of parliament providing it doesnt contravene EU law.
Extending the exit period is actually comparitively easy to do as there is provision for modification in the act itself.