Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Beside the fact, that the "people" were under very powerful (and surely fairly objective?) massage of the Brexiteers...

The campaign by government and media was very biased in favour of voting to Remain in the EU.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Bettyboo
If there was another vote: Brexit today no deal or Revoke. &, the people chose Brexit today no deal - would you accept the vote, second time around?
if there was another vote: brexit today no deal or revoke & the people chose revoke - would you accept the vote?

I would, but it is an academic question because the only two option referendum that Remainers are likely to respect is one where the options are (a) do you want to cancel Brexit or (b) do you want to stay in the EU.

Warwick, it's not worth it - they are mindless trolls (at least papillion is tongue in cheek - probably some fellas butt cheek...).

Originally Posted by Warwick

The campaign by government and media was very biased in favour of voting to Remain in the EU.

As evidenced here:



Add to that the 15% voting preference for no change over change - evident in all studies, and it's amazing that Brexit won against the odds.

Originally Posted by Warwick

That is the same as saying "I am 100% certain that I am not sure".

And could you explain to me how something that has never happened can be 'clearly demonstrated'.

another Brexiteer QED

MEGA !!!

it's a simple enough question (you did, after all, ask it), bettyboo....

if a referendum were held, and remain won, would you accept the vote?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

The people did vote... Have you forgotten???

If there was another vote: Brexit today no deal or Revoke. &, the people chose Brexit today no deal - would you accept the vote, second time around?

When the Government has come up with a practical alternative to EU membership, one that has projections for short, mid and long term financial implications as well as alternative atomic, security and R&D projections. Once they have done this they can ask people to decide. They can't ask people to vote on intangibles and then force policies through based on that vote.

Originally Posted by Troy

When the Government has come up with a practical alternative to EU membership, one that has projections for short, mid and long term financial implications as well as alternative atomic, security and R&D projections. Once they have done this they can ask people to decide. They can't ask people to vote on intangibles and then force policies through based on that vote.

Why not. Remain are doing exactly the same. Stay in the EU because I'm shit scared of change?

Why should we stay In the EU?

I don't know but Im scared of change.

No one has ever stated why we should remain, just that to the individual in question, the answer is obvious, but no explanation of why.

Don't be ridiculous switch. The whole structure of the UK trade policy is structured around being in the EU. The security arrangements are based on intelligence sharing with the EU. The civil airspace, certification and control is based on being in the EU. The atomic, medical and scientific agencies are based on being within the EU. What alternative arrangements have been made, based on withdrawal from the EU?

Originally Posted by raycarey

it's a simple enough question (you did, after all, ask it), bettyboo....

if a referendum were held, and remain won, would you accept the vote?

Yes I would because I believe in democracy through the people.

You'll notice the remoaners aren't bothering to answer the question... They don't believe in democracy unless it suits their personal belief on any individual subject...

Originally Posted by raycarey

it's a simple enough question (you did, after all, ask it), bettyboo....

if a referendum were held, and remain won, would you accept the vote?

of course he won't, would claim the REF1 was the only legitimate one, and that REF2 was forced by a minority to reverse REF1, therefore REF2 was not democracy

circular logic and all that, QED !!!

Originally Posted by Switch

Why not. Remain are doing exactly the same. Stay in the EU because I'm shit scared of change?

Why should we stay In the EU?

I don't know but Im scared of change.

No one has ever stated why we should remain, just that to the individual in question, the answer is obvious, but no explanation of why.

hello, are you serious? yeah, the obvious question is why would you need a brain? that's basically the equivalent of your question why the UK needs the EU?

because it can't be fucking functioning without the EU,

QED !!!

and for next week next shitshow with Boris

Brexit extension: PM to 'test law to limit' to avoid delay
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49625431

The government will "test to the limit" a new law designed to force it to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline if a deal is not reached by 19 October.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the government would abide by the law but would "look very carefully" at its "interpretation" of the legislation.

He said Britain remained committed to getting a deal with the EU.

The law, which should gain royal assent on Monday, aims to stop the UK exiting the EU with no deal on 31 October.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been warned he could face legal action if he chooses to flout it.

Chancellor Sajid Javid said the government would obey the law but "absolutely will not" ask the EU to extend the date of Brexit, as it sets out.

"Of course this government will obey the law. We are going to continue to work towards exit on 31 October. We will leave on 31 October.

awesome circular logic by Sajid Javid

Sajid Javid: "Our policy is unchanged... we will be leaving on 31 October"

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p07mspfw/49625431"

"we will obey the law, but will continue our policy of leaving on Oct 31"

how does that work, QED

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Yes I would because I believe in democracy through the people.

You'll notice the remoaners aren't bothering to answer the question... They don't believe in democracy unless it suits their personal belief on any individual subject...

...and I believe in representative democracy, as practised in the UK. Referendums don't belong in such systems except perhaps to provide a guideline. False promises and outright lies are not the way to build future policies.

Originally Posted by Troy

...and I believe in representative democracy, as practised in the UK. Referendums don't belong in such systems except perhaps to provide a guideline. False promises and outright lies are not the way to build future policies.

So, Ray, that's your answer from Troy - No, he would not abide by a second referendum result if Brexit won again...

For some reason Troy says he supports democracy???

Betty the populist then...and on to instability and chaos.

I don't know why you just don't clearly say it: if there was a second referendum with two questions: 1) Leave no deal; 2) Revoke and remain, then if Leave no deal won again, you don't believe it should be enacted by parliament.

Originally Posted by Troy

on to instability and chaos

Just like the chaos in Swiss basket case direct democracy.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...acy-explained/

Lessons to be learned there and some major changes needed to the archaic practices of the UK and other "representative" democracies.

Sorry, to run off topic but seems relevant to the debate.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

I don't know why you just don't clearly say it: if there was a second referendum with two questions: 1) Leave no deal; 2) Revoke and remain, then if Leave no deal won again, you don't believe it should be enacted by parliament.

I don't say that because it isn't my view. If the majority of MPs vote to leave the EU, with or without a further referendum then so be it. Parliament decides not a non binding referendum.

If Boris returns after a GE with a working majority and a mandate to leave the EU with or without a deal then he will have the authority to do so. Currently he does not have that majority.

Is that clear enough for you?

Originally Posted by Troy

Don't be ridiculous switch. The whole structure of the UK trade policy is structured around being in the EU. The security arrangements are based on intelligence sharing with the EU. The civil airspace, certification and control is based on being in the EU. The atomic, medical and scientific agencies are based on being within the EU. What alternative arrangements have been made, based on withdrawal from the EU?

The UK already cooperates on the issues mentioned, plus many others, some inside the EU and some bilaterally. French defence cooperation being just one of those. These are sensible and reasonable system over which we currently have a choice.
Why do you not understand that, with or without a deal, these common sense umbrella issues would be part of a negotiation in the future, no matter what anyone might say now, we are already an integral part of these institutions, which do not require UK membership of a political union.
None of them will cease overnight, unless the EC wants to play billy big bollox.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

QED

Please explain your understanding of this latin abbreviation and exactly how it is relevant?

If you are unable to comply with this request, you will be reported for talking shit and using irrelevant abbreviations.

Muppet.

I'm inclined to agree with several posters that Boris was familiar with the moods and frailties of his opposition, from both sides of the House, played it well, and fell into retreat knowing the enemy would follow straight into the spiked pit.

For propaganda/GE purposes his ass is covered and best he can do is nothing while the EU, rebels and opposition get the flak for obstruction, while his secret weapon, Corbyn, would in any case see him through comfortably. Without the unforeseeable before 31 Oct he either goes it alone for a slim majority or teams up with Farage for a landslide.

Face facts, IF this ridiculous bill is passed into law preventing a no-deal, surely even 3rd grade Parliamentarians know the EU would simply dig in and offer no extension or a long one conditional upon GE/Ref2 with stay option; with no deal off the table the gov would have no choice but to agree, while the EU is effectively imposing terms that amount to direct and unacceptable foreign interference.