Brexit and the Consequences

[Atilla]

I have credited the Illiberal Anti-democrats with at least being honest about what they really think and want - albeit very late in the day. If they'd had that view at the time of the referendum and the 2017 general election - I could even respect them. As it is, they are now a political oxymoron: having the word democrat in their party name, yet wilfully, deliberately, going against the majority view of the country. They're nothing but a (bad) joke.
Tim.

What are you talking about?

Nick Clegg strongly promoted pro-remain campaign.

Referendum was advisory not binding.

No matter what MPs said, if a new bill came to Parliament it would follow same process. Debated in HoCs and passed to HoLs for checks and balances.

I wish all you bleeding experts on democracy and our constitution where Parliament is sovereign get your heads out of you rectums.

Thanks

 

[timsk]

At',

What are you talking about?

Nick Clegg strongly promoted pro-remain campaign.

You're being obtuse. Surely you understand the difference between campaigning for remain but accepting the outcome to leave on the one hand, while on the other hand campaigning for remain but not accepting the outcome to leave? Nick Clegg & Co repeatedly said that they'd abide by the result of the referendum but, in true LibDem style, they've done a complete u-turn on that promise.

Referendum was advisory not binding.

Jeeeez At', how many more times are you going to post this? I (and all other subscribers to this thread) have wasted hours reading this totally irrelevant point that you insist on writing in every other post. It's sooo boring! Politicians of every hue on both sides of the argument said they'd abide by the referendum result. Cameron even put it in black and white in the leaflet delivered to every household in the land: "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

No matter what MPs said, if a new bill came to Parliament it would follow same process. Debated in HoCs and passed to HoLs for checks and balances.

Your point being?

I wish all you bleeding experts on democracy and our constitution where Parliament is sovereign get your heads out of you rectums.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything, let alone on democracy or our constitution. But I can read and I can observe actions which are all that's required in order to conclude that the Illiberal Anti-democrats do not respect democracy and can't be trusted. I really hope and expect they get taught a very painful lesson at the next general election.
Tim.

 

[0007]

What are you talking about?

Nick Clegg strongly promoted pro-remain campaign.
But he is no longer leader of the Liberals! And his integrity wasn't worth much was it?

Referendum was advisory not binding.
Where is the legal basis for that commonly held assertion? And why did Cameron say "it was a binding & once and for all decision"?


No matter what MPs said, if a new bill came to Parliament it would follow same process. Debated in HoCs and passed to HoLs for checks and balances.
HoLs for checks and balances? A place stuffed with unelected placemen! – Not much democracy there is there?

I wish all you bleeding experts on democracy and our constitution where Parliament is sovereign get your heads out of you rectums.
A rather one-sided view which is at odds with quite a few constitutional experts!

Thanks

 

[Atilla]

For goodness sake!!!!

What any one politicians or PM says is not law. They are not law makers are they?

You then suggest I'm being obtuse. Do you know the meaning of the word.

Once again it is debate in Parliament HoCs and HoLs that passes bill.

Politicians will say anything to get elected. Look at Gove and Boris. Gove says he will not run for PM role and 2 days later back stabs Boris and not only that goes against the very man who helped him get into that position.

Boris makes his mind up over a weekend having promoted importance of EU to UK industry and finance.

It's like being at school. But misss he called me an idiot. Yes you're an idiot Tommy now get back to your seat and do your maths.

One could argue the government has tried to implement the decision but numbers don't add up do they? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

TM wanted a bigger majority and held elections. Subsequently, lost majority. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

There is no majority for leaving the EU. Eurosceptics always were and still are a minority interest group. British people seeing what a bunch of wets that they are.

YES you do need to be reminded again.

REFERENDUM WAS ADVISORY NOT BINDING!


Learn to deal with it.

 

[counter_violent]

For goodness sake!!!!

What any one politicians or PM says is not law. They are not law makers are they?

You then suggest I'm being obtuse. Do you know the meaning of the word.

Once again it is debate in Parliament HoCs and HoLs that passes bill.

Politicians will say anything to get elected. Look at Gove and Boris. Gove says he will not run for PM role and 2 days later back stabs Boris and not only that goes against the very man who helped him get into that position.

Boris makes his mind up over a weekend having promoted importance of EU to UK industry and finance.

It's like being at school. But misss he called me an idiot. Yes you're an idiot Tommy now get back to your seat and do your maths.

One could argue the government has tried to implement the decision but numbers don't add up do they? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

TM wanted a bigger majority and held elections. Subsequently, lost majority. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

There is no majority for leaving the EU. Eurosceptics always were and still are a minority interest group. British people seeing what a bunch of wets that they are.

YES you do need to be reminded again.

REFERENDUM WAS ADVISORY NOT BINDING!


Learn to deal with it.

TM wanted a bigger majority and held elections. Subsequently, lost majority. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

She deliberately called an election and ran a non campaign in order to reduce the Tory majority in order to end up remaining in the EU. A master stroke tactic devised by the establishment. Except that it has failed because Brexiters have stood their ground and continued on with the campaign.

There is no majority for leaving the EU. Eurosceptics always were and still are a minority interest group. British people seeing what a bunch of wets that they are.

There is a majority for leaving the EU and when the general election finally comes you will see a resounding victory for the parties that campaign for it.

 

[counter_violent]

Remoaners know no bounds in their attempts to stop Brexit being delivered. It's embarrassing really that they are trying to coerce the courts into making judgments that belong in the political arena.

Judge dismisses no-deal Brexit court move

Lord Pentland says he must trust Boris Johnson to write a letter to the EU requesting an extension if no deal is agreed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Atilla]

TM wanted a bigger majority and held elections. Subsequently, lost majority. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

She deliberately called an election and ran a non campaign in order to reduce the Tory majority

Hillarious. Beats fake news.

You living in cloud cuckooooooo land.

 

[counter_violent]

Hillarious. Beats fake news.

You living in cloud cuckooooooo land.

Yeah we will see who's living in cloud cuckoo land.

I have a good predictive track record don't forget.

 

[Atilla]

Yeah we will see who's living in cloud cuckoo land.

I have a good predictive track record don't forget.

Sure you have Sparky... sure you have

Anything to keep you quiet.

 

[alan5616]

Remoaners know no bounds in their attempts to stop Brexit being delivered. It's embarrassing really that they are trying to coerce the courts into making judgments that belong in the political arena.

Judge dismisses no-deal Brexit court move

Lord Pentland says he must trust Boris Johnson to write a letter to the EU requesting an extension if no deal is agreed.

www.bbc.co.uk

If Brexit is delivered, my fear is that BoJo will try and draw us closer to the USA

 

[timsk]

. . .You then suggest I'm being obtuse. Do you know the meaning of the word.

adjective

1. 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
   "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

 

[Atilla]

slow to understand.

You, 007 and the rest of Brexiteers clearly do not understand Parliamentary Sovereignty, how bills are passed and if a politician tells you something it is not binding in law.

Take back control mantra has gone to your heads. It doesn't mean tyranny and dictatorship or popularism.

Thank goodness for our institutions protecting us from mad nutters.

 

[timsk]

You, 007 and the rest of Brexiteers clearly do not understand Parliamentary Sovereignty, how bills are passed and if a politician tells you something it is not binding in law.

Take back control mantra has gone to your heads. It doesn't mean tyranny and dictatorship or popularism.

Thank goodness for our institutions protecting us from mad nutters.

Who, exactly, are you calling 'mad nutters'?

What I don't understand is your belief that it is perfectly normal and acceptable for politicians to make clear and binding statements of intent in order to get elected and then do the polar opposite when they are. Or, in Cameron and Clegg's case, to do so when in power prior to the referendum. On that basis you'll be perfectly happy to support the LibDems if they do another u-turn and say they want a no-deal Brexit. (I know that's not going to happen - I'm just illustrating the point.) To be clear At', we're not talking about being economical with the truth or over egging the pudding here - which is part and parcel of every day politics - I accept that completely. What's happening now is in a completely different league. In my book it's deception and, potentially, fraudulent. Surely it's perfectly reasonable for the electorate to expect politicians to behave with a modicum of honour and integrity and to boot them out if they fail to do so. It happened following the expenses scandal and I expect fully it will happen again at the next general election.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Who, exactly, are you calling 'mad nutters'?

What I don't understand is your belief that it is perfectly normal and acceptable for politicians to make clear and binding statements of intent in order to get elected and then do the polar opposite when they are. Or, in Cameron and Clegg's case, to do so when in power prior to the referendum. On that basis you'll be perfectly happy to support the LibDems if they do another u-turn and say they want a no-deal Brexit. (I know that's not going to happen - I'm just illustrating the point.) To be clear At', we're not talking about being economical with the truth or over egging the pudding here - which is part and parcel of every day politics - I accept that completely. What's happening now is in a completely different league. In my book it's deception and, potentially, fraudulent. Surely it's perfectly reasonable for the electorate to expect politicians to behave with a modicum of honour and integrity and to boot them out if they fail to do so. It happened following the expenses scandal and I expect fully it will happen again at the next general election.
Tim.

Again I think your criticism of MPs is ott.

It is the responsibility of MPs to act in the national interest which has often meant over-riding manifesto commitments. It seems fair for them to argue (or at least debate) whether events in the three years since the referendum have strengthened a case for the national interest to be better served by remaining in. So far, though, most have not gone down that road, but have inhibited a “no deal” exit which the majority of MPs see as very much against the national interest. There is no majority for seeking to remain so I think it’s unfair to claim they are seeking to thwart brexit and acting dishonourably let alone fraudulently.

 

[timsk]

. . .It is the responsibility of MPs to act in the national interest which has often meant over-riding manifesto commitments. . .

Hi Jon,
I could comment on all your points - but we'd just be going around in circles - so I'll restrict myself to addressing the one quoted.

In principle, I agree with you completely. However, in the case of EU membership, MPs have been arguing about this for decades and been unable to decide whether EU membership is in the national interest or not. It's for precisely this very reason that the referendum was called in which, in effect they said: 'we can't decide what to do - so we're handing the decision making process over to you'. Not only that, but as I and others have made crystal clear numerous times - they all promised to abide by the result - making At's dreadfully tedious point about it being an advisory referendum null and void. So, the people decided to leave but the MPs who said they would implement our decision have decided that they don't want to and are going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that we don't. And that's just plain wrong, which is why I stand by my accusation of deception and, possibly, fraud. The 'no-deal' nonsense is nothing but a ruse created post referendum in a thinly disguised attempt to justify the unjustifiable. There was no mention of a deal or no-deal on the ballot paper - just in or out. Leave means leave!
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Hi Jon,
I could comment on all your points - but we'd just be going around in circles - so I'll restrict myself to addressing the one quoted.

In principle, I agree with you completely. However, in the case of EU membership, MPs have been arguing about this for decades and been unable to decide whether EU membership is in the national interest or not. It's for precisely this very reason that the referendum was called in which, in effect they said: 'we can't decide what to do - so we're handing the decision making process over to you'. Not only that, but as I and others have made crystal clear numerous times - they all promised to abide by the result - making At's dreadfully tedious point about it being an advisory referendum null and void. So, the people decided to leave but the MPs who said they would implement our decision have decided that they don't want to and are going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that we don't. And that's just plain wrong, which is why I stand by my accusation of deception and, possibly, fraud. The 'no-deal' nonsense is nothing but a ruse created post referendum in a thinly disguised attempt to justify the unjustifiable. There was no mention of a deal or no-deal on the ballot paper - just in or out. Leave means leave!
Tim.

Yes, leave means leave, but I seem to recall the rhetoric in the leave campaign about a deal, so a deal was pretty much part of leaving In most people’s minds. All the fuss is about preventing no deal and although it’s just a ruse in your mind I think otherwise. Best hang up our hats I think.

 

[counter_violent]

If Brexit is delivered, my fear is that BoJo will try and draw us closer to the USA

Again I think your criticism of MPs is ott.

It is the responsibility of MPs to act in the national interest which has often meant over-riding manifesto commitments. It seems fair for them to argue (or at least debate) whether events in the three years since the referendum have strengthened a case for the national interest to be better served by remaining in. So far, though, most have not gone down that road, but have inhibited a “no deal” exit which the majority of MPs see as very much against the national interest. There is no majority for seeking to remain so I think it’s unfair to claim they are seeking to thwart brexit and acting dishonourably let alone fraudulently.

And by their actions, they have collectively undermined the UK national interest whilst handing the initiative to the EU to maintain their hard ball stance.

So when Brexiters use the words, " traitors and collaborators" to describe those who are undermining the UK Govt position, then they are entirely justified to do so.

At best these MP's are well meaning but totally naive in their methods resulting in unintended consequences. At worst they are willfully and deliberately trying to overturn the referendum result.

Anyway, the UK voting public will not be taken in by any of their shenanigans.
One way or another we will end up at the position that I stated 3 years ago. No Deal, clean break Brexit.

 

[Atilla]

And by their actions, they have collectively undermined the UK national interest

Minority interest Eurosceptics have done what exactly?

Billions of potential investments have been postponed.

Transaction cost for businesses raised soon to be followed by price increases.

Pound crashing to 1.20 against the dollar reducing UK's purchasing power on the world stage.

Existing industries leaving the UK.

Future businesses thinking of locating in the UK changing plans. Unless ofcourse you are Amazon, Google or FB and simply don't want to pay any tax and employ low end low skill personnel.

What have Brexiteers delivered thus far? Who believes in their promises to deliver global bi-lateral deals that's going to make us better than what we have now?


Undermine national interest indeed! LOL

 

[barjon]

And by their actions, they have collectively undermined the UK national interest whilst handing the initiative to the EU to maintain their hard ball stance.

So when Brexiters use the words, " traitors and collaborators" to describe those who are undermining the UK Govt position, then they are entirely justified to do so.

At best these MP's are well meaning but totally naive in their methods resulting in unintended consequences. At worst they are willfully and deliberately trying to overturn the referendum result.

Anyway, the UK voting public will not be taken in by any of their shenanigans.
One way or another we will end up at the position that I stated 3 years ago. No Deal, clean break Brexit.

Didn’t hear you saying much about traitors and collaborators describing those who undermined the UK Government position pre Boris.
Yes, you’ve certainly been “no deal” consistent from the get go. Not even a pause for thought given the opposition against it from all sides and the unfolding of events of the sort mentioned by Attila above? Just collateral damage I suppose, let’s hope the damage is not so severe as to confine us to a wheelchair for decades.

 

[Signalcalc]

When Merkel kills a deal based on keeping NI in the customs union, you can be assured about who runs the EU and why the backstop was confected, no further explanation needed for this monumental waste of time when we could have had a clean break already.

Remoaners just dragging out the inevitable.