I don't think it is the case. Only 80 MPs support a second referendum, 160 support WTO no matter what.
The majority supports a soft brexit.
The diffculty comes from the split inside the conservative party. They can't unite on one form of brexit.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The majority supports a soft brexit.
The diffculty comes from the split inside the conservative party. They can't unite on one form of brexit.
Not that same old worn out trope again? it was obvious what was going on, the information was freely available ,
Do pack in with these worn out and boring lies, surely you are not flogging that same old worn out trope again? it was obvious what was going on, the information was freely available ,
And I look on it that the politicains knew very well what the EEC would beome, and so did that part of the population with the ability to understand what information was available.
Nobody was conned, those too lazy to try to understand the obvious have only themselves to blame, and they made the same mistake again being conned by liars who wanted Brexit to facilitate their tax dodges and other swindles.
Especially weird is your nonsense about foreign powers trying to take over the country when this was the driving force behind the Leave campaign!
In the EU we were major PARTNERS, not under foreign domination, outside the EU we are an easy target for domination by the USA, China and Russia.
Those who ran the leave campaign are the Cancer
Its 10.04 AM and OG has posted 11 times today, and he believes he is sane and rational.
Its pointless talking to the deranged. I, m putting OG back on ignore, not so I dont read his garbage but to tidy the thread up. Please reciprocate OG. Seriously. (its 12 now)
Its pointless talking to the deranged. I, m putting OG back on ignore, not so I dont read his garbage but to tidy the thread up. Please reciprocate OG. Seriously. (its 12 now)
How convenient is it to ignore that while 17.4 voted one way just a million less voted the other way..that is the only fact in your long posting. It could never then be a black and white choice,it needed to be shades of grey
After the result was posted,the winners did not know what they had won,why they had won ,only that they had won..They had no clue how to proceed. They knew what they had voted against, but not what they had voted for. .. That state of affairs continues to this very day.
Totally agreed Danidl. Perhaps there should have been conditions put on ref but they were not. It was a binary decision, in or out, country chose out. That is always going to be the nature of voting.
And, just as now voters dont fully understand the complexities of leaving they hadnt a clue where EU was heading when we joined in 73. Perhaps all those years ago it should have been made clear the EU (EEC then?, a trading block?) was planning to become the dominant power in Europe with complete power over governments, forming laws and passing judgements over all involved, which is where it is heading.
Its quite simple really Danidl. The majority of people in UK do not want to be part of that.
Asking people for reasons behind that feeling and justifacations of those beliefs is superflous. Nobody need justify who they wish to be governed by. I dont want EU. I, m happy with our governance and all its faults.
Thanks, but no thanks. I want to be governed from Westminster. Not Brussels.
Its rather like parents telling children who they should marry. I, ll make my own decision thanks. I voted out and would do so again.
If that makes me responsible for leaving so be it, but I, m not responsible for all the arguing, reprisal, insults and the mess. Thats squarely with MPs and remainers.
Last edited:
By the word conned do you mean" convinced" or do you mean" lied to ". .The past is another country,and trying to figure out the thought processes of 50 years ago, extremely challenging. There may well have been Europhiles, who dreamed of the possibility of travelling from a Spain to Italy without showing passports and stamped visas at 4 border crossings,but they would never even of dreamed that they might have a right to work and study or not need to change currency at each of these locations. Now the rich Edwardians of 1910 were able to do so,but they were the global elite.
Things change. A simple trading relationship can grow in time into a merger then a partnership. In the EUs case that is what has happened. However at each stage in the process, a new agreement was required and these agreements all have names. In every single ONE of these the UK representatives and the UK parliament had a veto.
Using your analogy of a Cancer, I might echo it, and suggest that virus causing this cancer was the infected representatives the UK choose to send. It has poisoned the body politic of the UK. By representatives,I mean the elected and also the informal..the newspaper reporters and lobbyists.
Last edited:
Good post. Still want out tho.I dont mind border posts, very good idea with our current threats and insecurity. Nice vision though.But like much of EU its not quite reality.
Last edited:
it's clearly stated in the Act that the referendum is advisory.
Interpretation and delivery is clearly the job for MPs.
what causes the chaos is the negotiating tactics of the DUP and the ERG. They believe that negotiation must be to the wire.
Why brexiters don't blame them for the suspense and chaos is beyond me.
So you enjoy making uninformed binary decisions and do not like due diligence or self awareness. Reality has a way of punishing that kind of approach.
I agree with what you say, except that we were never given a choice in the matter. You could argue that this is up to the politicians to make the judgement but that then gives them the power to implement policies in their interests and not necessarily in the interests of the populace. Was it not stated that if there was any transfer of powers with any treaty then we would get a referendum, in fact I seem to recall Blair saying we would have one and then reneging on it. No doubt under pressure from the EU, and there are other instances of such dodgy dealings. Gordon Brown sneaking in the back door to sign a treaty and then scuttling away springs to mind
My life decisions are mine and havent done me too bad so far. But there you go again, the assumption your decision is somehow more informed, valid, sociable or what ever than mine. It is not. I, m not asking you to justify your bad decision, its not my place. Please re read my posts, I, ve explained why I voted out. Not saying it again.
Why bring in my self awareness, perhaps you should jump in a car and drive around your beloved EU. You hold EU in far too high a regard.
I was simply reflecting back to you the verbatim content of your previous post. The eu is far from perfect,there is what jc calls much i am beginning to loath him a democratic deficit. But none of that comes anywhere near the westminster system or a "special relationship" in which a reactionary us sets our foreign policy.
Its gratifying that you acknowledge brexit was a bad decision. I do incidentally question my bad decisions. Im simply pointing out the consequences of not doing it (reality stepping in and making one do so), not telling you what to do.
Neither of these comments are relevant to this discussion. I expressed my opinion as we all do.
The difference is that years ago I knew and correctly forecast the outcome we have, that the deal would not and could not be true Brexit, at a time when the Leavers in here and elsewhere were confident it would be.
And I also gave the reason why that was so. Yet still we have Brexiters in here and elsewhere believing it's due to some sort of political conspiracy to prevent us leaving.
There is no conspiracy, our MPs are clearly incapable of reaching agreement on anything, let alone a secret way of keeping us in the EU without anyone knowing the details. The truth is that we and the EU have spent nearly 50 years inadvertantly constructing a complex trap that's impossible to escape from without considerable harm to all involved.
The best evidence for that was the Great Repeal Bill. The fact that wrote all 44 years of EU law into UK law was an admission of failure in advance, an acknowledgement of the impossibility of undoing it all in favour of home grown law. Even if we walk away with No Deal we are now permanently stuck with that.
.
Fair post and actuslly quite clever. Perhaps you have found a good compromise. Both leaving and remaining are seriously flawed.???
I see leaving having lesser of 2 evils and you remaining...
Out of our hands now... Until ref2 or GE...
I, m out now. Have a good day.
The EU you are scared silly of doesn't exist, at least not yet, and I am not so sure it ever will. The US and China don't want it to exist and the UK is a pawn they are playing to prevent the political union from going too far.
I have driven in a car through various countries of the EU. I have also driven in a car through various states of the US. In the EU no one ever menaced me with a gun while I was driving down the road...
From todays Irish Times....
no-deal Brexit “is now very unlikely,” Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney told a press conference in Paris on Friday night.
He said if the British parliament ratified the withdrawal agreement negotiated by prime minister Theresa May next week he expected the EU would extend the Brexit deadline until the end of June, to enable the UK to wrap up technicalities. But if parliament rejected the accord a third time, Mr Coveney thought the EU might refuse to grant a longer extension.
He based his prediction on the strength of this week’s vote in the House of Commons to avoid a no-deal Brexit. “But having said that, just because you vote against something doesn’t make it happen the way you want it to,” he continued. “The British parliament has to take a course of action to avoid the current default position in law, which is that they leave on the 29th of March.”
Earlier in the day, Mr Coveney expressed intense frustration over the Brexit process in a lecture to the Jacques Delors Institute.
“If you were looking at this from the moon, you would think: how is this being allowed to happen?” he said.
He spoke of “Britain negotiating with itself, over and over again on issues . . . not actually understanding there is another partner in the negotiation that is trying to facilitate Britain leaving in a way that is structured, but also takes account of legitimate concerns that the EU has”.
Westminster confronts Brexit “solely through the lens of British politics and often internal party conflicts. It is so frustrating”, the Tánaiste said. “And added to that, in the context of Northern Ireland, for the most part there is only one perspective. . .held by a Unionist party. It is not the majority view either.”
One-sidedness has created ill feeling, the Tánaiste continued, “Often what is seen as EU intransigence or lack of flexibility towards Britain’s asks is met with shock and anger in the UK, because there has never been a proper debate and discussion around the EU perspective.”
Nothing offensive
Mr Coveney criticised the rejection of the withdrawal agreement that was drawn up between Mrs May and the team led by the EU’s negotiator, Michel Barnier. “The withdrawal agreement only does four things. With the exception of the Irish backstop, which I think we’ve given a huge amount of reassurance on, there is nothing offensive in it” he said.
He listed the four elements of the agreement: “A financial settlement which the UK agreed on; protecting citizens’ rights; putting a two to four year transition period which gives everyone space to negotiate a future relationship, and it’s about protecting peace on the island of Ireland. Could somebody please tell me what they object to in those four issues. . . If you actually look at what’s in the withdrawal agreement, it’s incredible to think that the agreement and the inability to ratify it is holding everything up.”
The confusion in London “causes huge disruption in many EU countries. It’s not just about the UK”, Mr Coveney said. “I am foreign minister in Ireland and I spend at least two-thirds of my time on Brexit when I should be doing other things. We as a small country are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money investing in contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit which we don’t think will happen. . .”
Extension
Mr Coveney said that if the British parliament can ratify a deal next week and seeks a short extension until June to wrap up technical details, “I think everybody would welcome that outcome. I don’t think there would be any problem in facilitating two or three months of legislative time for Westminster.”
On the other hand, if there is no deal in Westminster and Mrs May asks for a much longer extension, “I think many EU leaders will be very uncomfortable with a long extension,” the Tánaiste said. Ireland would pose no obstacle to Britain taking more time, “But we have to respect that there are other EU countries that have different perspectives.”
Mr Coveney said that Ireland and France “have always been close, but the UK’s departure brings us even closer together.”
He praised President Emmanuel Macron’s recent European initiative, saying that “No one has put more energy into formulating ideas for the renewal of Europe. People should listen to President Macron. . .There are of course some things we disagree with France on, in terms of structures within Europe. But the actual overall objective and vision, we buy into in a major way.”
no-deal Brexit “is now very unlikely,” Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney told a press conference in Paris on Friday night.
He said if the British parliament ratified the withdrawal agreement negotiated by prime minister Theresa May next week he expected the EU would extend the Brexit deadline until the end of June, to enable the UK to wrap up technicalities. But if parliament rejected the accord a third time, Mr Coveney thought the EU might refuse to grant a longer extension.
He based his prediction on the strength of this week’s vote in the House of Commons to avoid a no-deal Brexit. “But having said that, just because you vote against something doesn’t make it happen the way you want it to,” he continued. “The British parliament has to take a course of action to avoid the current default position in law, which is that they leave on the 29th of March.”
Earlier in the day, Mr Coveney expressed intense frustration over the Brexit process in a lecture to the Jacques Delors Institute.
“If you were looking at this from the moon, you would think: how is this being allowed to happen?” he said.
He spoke of “Britain negotiating with itself, over and over again on issues . . . not actually understanding there is another partner in the negotiation that is trying to facilitate Britain leaving in a way that is structured, but also takes account of legitimate concerns that the EU has”.
Westminster confronts Brexit “solely through the lens of British politics and often internal party conflicts. It is so frustrating”, the Tánaiste said. “And added to that, in the context of Northern Ireland, for the most part there is only one perspective. . .held by a Unionist party. It is not the majority view either.”
One-sidedness has created ill feeling, the Tánaiste continued, “Often what is seen as EU intransigence or lack of flexibility towards Britain’s asks is met with shock and anger in the UK, because there has never been a proper debate and discussion around the EU perspective.”
Nothing offensive
Mr Coveney criticised the rejection of the withdrawal agreement that was drawn up between Mrs May and the team led by the EU’s negotiator, Michel Barnier. “The withdrawal agreement only does four things. With the exception of the Irish backstop, which I think we’ve given a huge amount of reassurance on, there is nothing offensive in it” he said.
He listed the four elements of the agreement: “A financial settlement which the UK agreed on; protecting citizens’ rights; putting a two to four year transition period which gives everyone space to negotiate a future relationship, and it’s about protecting peace on the island of Ireland. Could somebody please tell me what they object to in those four issues. . . If you actually look at what’s in the withdrawal agreement, it’s incredible to think that the agreement and the inability to ratify it is holding everything up.”
The confusion in London “causes huge disruption in many EU countries. It’s not just about the UK”, Mr Coveney said. “I am foreign minister in Ireland and I spend at least two-thirds of my time on Brexit when I should be doing other things. We as a small country are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money investing in contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit which we don’t think will happen. . .”
Extension
Mr Coveney said that if the British parliament can ratify a deal next week and seeks a short extension until June to wrap up technical details, “I think everybody would welcome that outcome. I don’t think there would be any problem in facilitating two or three months of legislative time for Westminster.”
On the other hand, if there is no deal in Westminster and Mrs May asks for a much longer extension, “I think many EU leaders will be very uncomfortable with a long extension,” the Tánaiste said. Ireland would pose no obstacle to Britain taking more time, “But we have to respect that there are other EU countries that have different perspectives.”
Mr Coveney said that Ireland and France “have always been close, but the UK’s departure brings us even closer together.”
He praised President Emmanuel Macron’s recent European initiative, saying that “No one has put more energy into formulating ideas for the renewal of Europe. People should listen to President Macron. . .There are of course some things we disagree with France on, in terms of structures within Europe. But the actual overall objective and vision, we buy into in a major way.”
In truth i dont see remaing as seriously flawed. I dont want to repeat whats been said too often. But the eu has done much much more for us, as consumers and citizens, than uk governments. And if the present hysterical horsemanure thats going down in westminster doesnt turn one off it, im not sure what will. But you have a good day as well.
I agree with Johnathan..
Remaining in the EU is remaining in a slightly flawed organisation. But an organisation which can and must be reformed..a little. Leaving on the WA terms is more flawed, both because of the damage it does to the UK economy and EU,and it removes the POTENTIAL of the UK to assist in the reform process. It is a lot worse than remaining on those terms,a point which has been flagged up incessantly by all sides in HoC. Leaving on Crash out terms is a disaster and is highly flawed.
So I would strongly disagree with the proposition that both positions leave and remain had equal merit.