Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:42 AM

Brexit should have been a Cross-Party endeavour right from the outset. If we have to accept 'the will of a minority of the people', it is far too important and complex an issue to be left to an incompetent and self-serving Tory government to handle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:38 AM

"I fail to see why you insist on contributing to UK political threads. With no vote to contribute, what are your opinions worth?"
How dare anybody suggest a Brit living abroad cannot comment on what's happening in his birthplace - how narrow-mindedly 'Little-Brit' can you get?
My roots are in Britain, py political understanding was formed in Britain, my family still live there - a nephew stands to lose his job with Westland once this shit slithers under Britain's door
A state that only represents those who vote (by choice or circumstance) is as far from a democratic one as you can get

The racist nature of Brexit affects the world anyway - the Populism it let out of the bottle gavce us Trump and Orban... and the neo-fascist revolution that is now taking place

"The proof is archived for all to discover."
It most certainly is, and very reluctant to show its face, just as is the accusations of lying
I've shown you my lists, you show me yours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:33 AM

"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first."

Oxymoron.

"Should the government of the day or opposition ignore the wishes of the electorate they know full well what would happen to them come election time."

So the government of the day and the opposition should get their heads together and do what's blatantly obviously in the national interest: declare that they are both opposed to brexit and ditch it forthwith.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:14 AM

The party that has the majority in government has the responsibility for legislation regardless of what the opposition says. The blame for this debacle lies entirely with Cameron's administration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

Jim as by your own admission you have lived in Ireland for 20 years, this means you lost your right to vote in the UK 5 years ago. As you are disenfranchised I fail to see why you insist on contributing to UK political threads. With no vote to contribute, what are your opinions worth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 04:40 AM

Should the government of the day or opposition ignore the wishes of the electorate they know full well what would happen to them come election time. How else to explain Corbyn and the Labour part behaviour. As has been pointed out here, had they gone against the wishes of the electorate they would have been toast.

From Labour's manifesto:

Negotiating Brexit

Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 04:13 AM

Remember that the 2016 referendum was an advisory one. It was the government of the day, IE David Cameron's Tory administration, that took the decision to act on that advice and press ahead with the cataclysmic departure from the EU. Cameron knew what a disaster leaving would be but instead of staying to face the consequences he washed his hands of it. Bastard.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 04:11 AM

"By the way, I may mistake what people say on occasion - I do not deliberately misrepresent anybody - it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do on a public forum"

On occasion? more like monotonous regularity. The proof is archived for all to discover.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 03:56 AM

THe evidence is plain - even within your own party
The British people would have to be extremely stupid to see that what started as a move to keep immigrants out into something that is breaking up the UK and, according to the economist, has placed a huge question mark ofver Britain's future
I didn't say that you said that, I said that that is the present situation
Even your own party is at each other's throats on the issue
An interesting article in our 'Times' yesterday suggested that not even Mad Boris is committed to Brexit but is using it as a career move to grab May's job- an inter-party attempt at a coup

My stance is a simple one - in the circumstances iot would be totally undemocratic not to have a second referendum to confirm that the British people believe it right to leave Europe
It has been noticable here in Ireland that referenda on major issues that are repeats of previous ones have shown a marked rise in numbers voting - that has also been the case in the U.S. mid-terms
Increased involvement by the electorate is a major step towards real democracy
Brexit, Trump, Orban, Peru and the horrific swing to the extreme right has sfa to do with democracy - it is a step towards fascism
Jim Carroll
By the way, I may mistake what people say on occasion - I do not deliberately misrepresent anybody - it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do on a public forum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 03:41 PM

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:54 AM
"Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter."
Ask away Rag...
You have my full compliance
Wouldn't miss Nigels explanation of how many of the Leavers now seem to be of the opinion that they were conned and how it can be [possibly democratic to crash out without consulting them again (though I doubt if one is forthcoming)

Jim.
Would you care to explain where I have "explained that the opinion of the leavers is that they have been conned"?
This seems to be another claim of yours with no basis, used to put forward your own baseless arguments.
Either respond to what has actually been said, or leave the discussion to those who can.
I do not try to prevent you expressing your own opinion, but wish you would do so without misquoting others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 02:23 PM

Bring it on!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 12:26 PM

Am I the only one who suspects that, despite his claim to be a Remainer, Baby Johnson's resignation is an attempt at further destabilising May in the hope that she will fall, and his Big Bro can be shoehorned in as PM - thus opening the door for a crash-out Hard Brexit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

Don't forget the Brexiteers' Mantra Jim - "We won, get over it".
It's a real shame they don't have the faintest understanding of the UK democratic process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:54 AM

"Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter."
Ask away Rag...
You have my full compliance
Wouldn't miss Nigels explanation of how many of the Leavers now seem to be of the opinion that they were conned and how it can be [possibly democratic to crash out without consulting them again (though I doubt if one is forthcoming)
Even Cris Tarrant has to get hi competitors to say "final aswer" before the answer becomes final
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:31 AM

I don't agree, Nigel. The Soubry proposal for a ranked voting system does not split the leave vote- despite what some claim - but does allow a vote for leave to express the type of Brexit that is preferred.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:12 AM

I don't think that follows, though no doubt whoever lost would continue to campaign for one. The 2016 vote was whether to leave or not. The proposed vote is on the shape of leaving, with the ability for people to say nothing being offered is good enough.   If they decide it is not good enough, we should not do it, but certainly you are free to argue that better is possible, and once you have come up with something to argue for a vote on it.

It seems that those who have consistently supported Remain believe that the alternative, should an agreement not be reached, is to remain in the EU.
Those who supported Brexit feel that if no 'good deal' (or acceptable deal) is offered then the alternative is that we leave without a deal.

Effectively, the two views above come down to something which was already decided in 2016. We are leaving the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 10:57 AM

Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 10:11 AM

I know exactly what you mean, and so does everybody else
Time to take the giant step into adulthood -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

oh dear!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 08:09 AM

"you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote"
I have no idea whether it would - if you see nothing wrong with giving people the vote why not say so instead of just hurling abuse
You really ought to control your abusive behaviour, we already know how the extreme right behaves without your reminding us
Grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 07:19 AM

What on earth is wrong with giving them that right - you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote

Problems understanding the written word again?
My words:Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

Too busy stalking to read properly perhaps?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 07:04 AM

"DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit,"
Knowing what we now no, the people have a right to vote again on the issue
There is enough evidence to suggest that those who voted for would no longer do so ad those who didn't vote would come out and vote - even the Conservative party are totally divided on the issue
What on earth is wrong with giving them that right - you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote
Another referendum would be a damn sight cheaper that another bung to the DUP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:33 AM

There are Brexit options with an NI relationship that the DUP can back, and options that they will vehemently oppose.

There are Brexit options with a customs union that the UK can end unilaterally, and options where it can only end via a joint agreement.

There are options more like Canada, and options more like Norway

The second vote is not whether Brexit should be frustrated, but whether the particular version the government ends up with is one the people wish.

Now certainly my first preference would be to call the whole thing off. But my second preference is for a Brexit that does as little damage to the UK as possible.   So for example I would prefer just about any 'deal' Brexit to a 'no-deal' Brexit. That second preference is not in any way about frustrating Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

And if unacceptable to the people, you wish to frustrate brexit, as I stated.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:07 AM

I should perhaps have phrased it as 'the particular version of Brexit that happens'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:06 AM

DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit, no matter how you wish to dress it up

Essentially I propose a vote to ensure any Brexit that happens is acceptable to the people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:05 AM

DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit, no matter how you wish to dress it up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 05:55 AM


Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

After all, whatever arguments justify a second vote apply equally to a third

I don't think that follows, though no doubt whoever lost would continue to campaign for one. The 2016 vote was whether to leave or not. The proposed vote is on the shape of leaving, with the ability for people to say nothing being offered is good enough.   If they decide it is not good enough, we should not do it, but certainly you are free to argue that better is possible, and once you have come up with something to argue for a vote on it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 05:43 AM

he has said that the UK public should have another say in this debacle.

Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

After all, whatever arguments justify a second vote apply equally to a third.

I think by debacle you mean betrayal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:17 PM

"Fair play to him."
Not criticising him Steve - I only caught the tail of the story
Just pointing out that the Brexit team is like the blind men who went to see the elephant - they only understand the little bit they can grasp themselves but none of them have the faintest idea what the whole animal looks like
Feckin self-destructive madness
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:03 PM

In his defence Jim he has said that the UK public should have another say in this debacle.

Fair play to himm.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 01:18 PM

Arlene Foster has said the DUP won't support May's "betrayal" plans for Brexit - (that-s a billion of the taxpayers money down the Swanee) and a cabinet minister resigns over Brexit
Oh Calamity!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:35 AM

The final Brexit will be neither soft or hard
but rather wet.
The wet Brexit will be independent pricing of agricultural goods crossing the channel.
Rip offs and savings will abound.

-Nostrildamus-

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:09 AM

"I have just opened a letter confirming I am an Irish citizen."
Stand by for the "bog dweller" jibes, very popular with one of our insecuros
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:05 AM

I have just opened a letter confirming I am an Irish citizen. I suppose I have to practice all the stereotypes now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

I have finally got round to those purported briefing notes outlining a schedule for the PM to 'sell' her deal to Parliament and us. The government has denied this document has any official status, but even so, this is an interesting entry:


20th - Theme is Delivering for the Whole of the UK - PM to visit the north and or Scotland and the Commons will debate in business motions the date of the Meaningful Vote.

PM will be back in the house to vote. The Cabinet Office publishes its explainer of the deal and what it means for the public, comparing it to No Deal, but not to our current deal.


Whether this is official or not, the time will come when the government must persuade us and Paliament about the merits of the proposal. I wonder if, like this document, they will "compar[e] it to No Deal, but not to our current deal". Maybe comparing it to what we would have if we just stayed as we are is far too painful?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:50 AM

Re 5 Nov comments on the Electoral Commission (The UK body set up to ensure compliance with electoral law): I think it is worth pointing out that the Times article to be found by following the link shows that the courts upheld fines against the Leave campaign on the basis of its significant breach of the spending rules in relation to a Canadian digital marketing company. It is common ground that at one point the Commission seems to have got it wrong, but in its favour goes the point that it put its mistake right before the court decision, which supported the Commission's eventual position, and which found additional reason for the illegality of the financial arrangements/declarations. The Commission expressed happiness at the fact that it now had the guidance of the court on the matter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:17 AM

BREXIT CRISIS EXPLAINED
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:14 AM

Stop engaging with this feller Steve - it's how he works when he runs out of the limited responses he has at his disposal
Brexit is further up Shit Street than it has ever been and the behaviour of those attempting to drive it though by refusing to take it back to the people is indefensible
Why waste time on a serial abuser rather than hit them with the facts of the situation (pause while awaiting further racist abuse about bog-trotting)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 05:32 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:54 PM

You tell us. By the way, sentences end with full stops.

Oh well. That wipes out the use of the question mark, and exclamation mark, at a stroke.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:07 PM

It must be pointed out shaw that it is a silly little game started by you and can easily be demonstrated. All your petty nitpickings are archived. Here is my response some while back to your pontifications
From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Oct 17 - 03:40 AM

If you do not wish to contribute to the thread, why are you here?
You are trying hard to bring others into the thread simply to stir things up. That is not very clever, is it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 06:34 PM

I'm not going to bicker with the likes of you, but I would remind you that you serially take the piss out of Jim's posts apropos of his typos. You are the biter bit, old boy. I don't criticise people, ever, who make mistakes, unless they puff out their chests in order to criticise others' peccadillos, as you do. No further comment from me on this. Nighty night.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:14 PM

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:20 PM

Having your grammar/spelling/punctuation corrected is very annoying, but the beauty of it is that the person correcting you is invariably guilty of much more of said inelegance than you are. It's generally very easy to pick them to pieces on account of their own peccadillos, always far more numerous than yours, and the temptation to move in for the kill is too great to resist. Very naughty, but I'm only human

As Martin said to his man..............Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:54 PM

You tell us. By the way, sentences end with full stops.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:51 AM

and the opening post was?

OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:22 AM

Instead of trying to be a barrack-room, clever-shit, smart-arse, Professor, why not comment on the facts?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:18 AM

How do you know they wear boxers? Any other unhealthy fixations you would care to share with us?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:44 AM

But still far worse than it was before the Union-Flag Boxers Brigade decided to vote to 'Take are cuntry back'.

A few facts for BrexShiteers' education.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:27 AM

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1041974/pound-euro-exchange-rate-brexit-news-deal-best

Exchange rate the best for months.
Contrary to popular belief the sky is not falling.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

Meanwhile the electoral commission has a few problems.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-electoral-commission-is-not-fit-for-its-crucial-purpose.html

They were recently trounced in the courts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/electoral-commission-suffers-high-court-defeat-over-brexit-expenses-advice-jhnx7hpf6