Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

The route to achieve that manifestly was not.

Surely the process/route was clear

Promise a referendum in your manifesto

Receive an unexpected majority - as previously did Major and Blair - on the strength of that promise

Demonstrate the integrity to honour that promise - as previously Blair and Major did not

Conduct the Referendum

Implement the result

Jumping to the post process outcomes that are associated to the above - should we end up with a no-deal outcome - that is simply a consequence of not being able to reach a satisfactory deal.

It really is that simple and clear

 

[mcfc1632]

Have you considered, that after 44 years that may not be possible?

Well wouldn't that be the ultimate betrayal ?

I do not remember the original vote to join the common market setting out on the ballot paper - "...…… and thereby commit to a future full political, financial and economic union without the opportunity to ever again express your wishes....."

 

[mcfc1632]

Do you have to reply at once to every point made? Especially when you think so much of it is bollox.
Hurts my thumb scrolling down when you come on here replying to everything.

Well - I have not seen any rule that makes it mandatory - so no

Just a personal choice to express my opinions against posts that I support (or not)

If it is a problem to you, you also have a personal choice. Why waste time with a post like this? - just put me on ignore - simples

 

[mcfc1632]

It’s why all the previous Brexit threads got pulled. People used to respond to all that shite.

Unnecessary and seeking to insult/provoke a response I would suggest

That is what we have been requested to avoid

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Surely the process/route was clear

Promise a referendum in your manifesto

Receive an unexpected majority - as previously did Major and Blair - on the strength of that promise

Demonstrate the integrity to honour that promise - as previously Blair and Major did not

Conduct the Referendum

Implement the result

Jumping to the post process outcomes that are associated to the above - should we end up with a no-deal outcome - that is simply a consequence of not being able to reach a satisfactory deal.

It really is that simple and clear

The evidence before us today would suggest it was anything but simple and clear.

Without a manadated mechsnism for leaving, there was always going to be interent and (most likely) fatal fault lines in effectuating our exit from the EU.

No care or meaningful thought went into the prospect of a vote to leave by Cameron; the result is what you see today - being unable to reach a satisfactory means of exiting.

 

[hgblue]

So the Irish Foreign Minister insists on Marr the backstop stays as an insurance policy against no deal which means the WA can’t pass leading to no deal and the Irish economy taking a massive hit. Makes perfect sense to me ;)

 

[blueinsa]

So the Irish Foreign Minister insists on Marr the backstop stays as an insurance policy against no deal which means the WA can’t pass leading to no deal and the Irish economy taking a massive hit. Makes perfect sense to me ;)

All deals, all roads, all negotiations have from day one pointed to and been designed to result in revocation.

Still it’s remainers that are angry and upset.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Surely the process/route was clear

Promise a referendum in your manifesto

Receive an unexpected majority - as previously did Major and Blair - on the strength of that promise

Demonstrate the integrity to honour that promise - as previously Blair and Major did not

Conduct the Referendum

Implement the result

Jumping to the post process outcomes that are associated to the above - should we end up with a no-deal outcome - that is simply a consequence of not being able to reach a satisfactory deal.

It really is that simple and clear

You forgot the to insert ' Fuck off and do a runner ' between 'Conduct the Referendum' and ' Implement the result'

 

[hgblue]

All deals, all roads, all negotiations have from day one pointed to and been designed to result in revocation.

Still it’s remainers that are angry and upset.

And the Irish plan for the border in the event of no deal? Checks away from the border, now why does that sound familiar?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

You forgot the to insert ' Fuck off and do a runner ' between 'Conduct the Referendum' and ' Implement the result'

Tbf to Cameron and Osborne they had to go as their position had become untenable due to the lies peddled by the remain campaign. It was in that sense the honourable thing to do.

 

[mcfc1632]

This is a strange argument. We are part of the EU at the moment, you make it sound it as though we are a separate entity. An equivalent would be Mancunians paying taxes to subsidise a bus service on the Outer Hebrides or Rochdale. We pay it because we don't to deprive others who will suffer from the lack of a bus service. In a similar vein Europeans (us included)have paid for the new motorway across the Algarve Portugal. That investment will mean Portugal can benefit from growth and in turn give back to the EU so another area can benefit.

To describe the UK as a cash cow is plainly ridiculous, we pay our share, sometimes areas like the Outer Hebrides and Rochdale benefit too. The debate is framed in an us and them manner which is misleading because it makes us as a nation look like hypocrites because we do the same with our nations confines.

The UK may be a net contributer as it stands but as other area's economies benefit from investment that balance will be addressed. So I am afraid that argument is disingenuous and does the leave side no credit.

I can understand why you take the view you do and as you are not an out and out Remainer I will not treat it as a 'position of convenience'.

I do think though that you are badly wide of the mark on this - when not tapping on a phone I will explain why

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

The evidence before us today would suggest it was anything but simple and clear.

Without a manadated mechsnism for leaving, there was always going to be interent and (most likely) fatal fault lines in effectuating our exit from the EU.

No care or meaningful thought went into the prospect of a vote to leave by Cameron; the result is what you see today - being unable to reach a satisfactory means of exiting.

Partly because we had an absolute tit in charge of the negotiations who also was a remainer. Her incompetence and red lines could only lead to this outcome . To her it was all about immigration and she ended up with a crap deal.

This is the same woman who has just announced a long overdue pay rise for public sector workers but not actually funded the pay rise centrally. Putting even greater pressure on schools hospitals etc to manage their tight budgets

I would not trust her to negotiate anything . You would say you want to buy Laporte and that silly cow would come back with Phil jones .

 

[mcfc1632]

I can show you hundreds of Leave campaign references to a deal. Where is your one advocating No Deal?

I think George is now on board with admitting there is No Mandate for No Deal. And I've fixed this for you.

"A no-deal outcome is simply the undemocratic consequence of not being able to reach a deal that is satisfactory to all Leavers."

You are just simply and obviously wrong and this deal or no-deal narrative is just convenient Remainer prevarication IMO

A deal - let's say May's deal - or perhaps EEA, Norway or Canada+ - they are all consequences of the mandate and outcomes of the negotiation

If the May WA had been approved - as much as I would have been disgusted - I would have had to accept that consequence/outcome had delivered against the mandate.

Same for any and all other models.

If I was, after such a deal, on here screaming, bitching and whinging that it did not reflect what I wanted - you would, quite rightly, be calling me out for being a disingenuous / prevaricating knob who in reality could simply not accept the result purely because it did not suit me.

The mandate is to leave

The promises were to implement the result

 

[mcfc1632]

The evidence before us today would suggest it was anything but simple and clear.

Without a manadated mechsnism for leaving, there was always going to be interent and (most likely) fatal fault lines in effectuating our exit from the EU.

No care or meaningful thought went into the prospect of a vote to leave by Cameron; the result is what you see today - being unable to reach a satisfactory means of exiting.

I can accept that Cameron (a Remainer) was delinquent and incompetent before the referendum and May (a Remainer) showed the same qualities post the vote.

What was totally clear was the mandate from the UK citizens - to Leave the EU

 

[mcfc1632]

You forgot the to insert ' Fuck off and do a runner ' between 'Conduct the Referendum' and ' Implement the result'

Nope - referendums instruct governments - not induviduals

 

[George Hannah]

Can you actually pin down that Gove / Leave meant the EEA?

third video down on the link I provided - interview with Radio 4?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

 

[mcfc1632]

And the Irish plan for the border in the event of no deal? Checks away from the border, now why does that sound familiar?

It has been clear - I expect to most of us - that this has always been an issue exaggerated, 'promoted' and weaponised for the benefit/convenience of the EU negotiating position.

Unfortunately for the UK, our negotiating team was staffed by either a) rank amateurs, or b) conniving anti-Brexit professionals seeking to ensure that all roads lead to revocation.

 

[Vic]

third video down on the link I provided - interview with Radio 4?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

Thanks for that. So he was saying we'd be in EFTA but not in the single market? So two false promises of a deal in one go!

 

[Vic]

You are just simply and obviously wrong and this deal or no-deal narrative is just convenient Remainer prevarication IMO

A deal - let's say May's deal - or perhaps EEA, Norway or Canada+ - they are all consequences of the mandate and outcomes of the negotiation

If the May WA had been approved - as much as I would have been disgusted - I would have had to accept that consequence/outcome had delivered against the mandate.

Same for any and all other models.

If I was, after such a deal, on here screaming, bitching and whinging that it did not reflect what I wanted - you would, quite rightly, be calling me out for being a disingenuous / prevaricating knob who in reality could simply not accept the result purely because it did not suit me.

The mandate is to leave

The promises were to implement the result

But bitching and whining before the deal, because the deal does not suit you, is ok?

I can't remember whether you had any problem with our staying in the EEA.

 

[mcfc1632]

But bitching and whining before the deal, because the deal does not suit you, is ok?

I can't remember whether you had any problem with our staying in the EEA.

You need to give it up Vic or you will just come across as acting in that manner

The referendum mandate is to leave

Any deal/model etc. is simply the consequences/outcome of how the negotiations went/go