Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mëtal Bikër said:
Yes, i'm saying there are no sensationalist similarities that you're propogating, here.

No, you said changes to the constitution by using minorities. Leaving the EU is not about migration/race/community for many many people. I cannot take the rest of your comments seriously. It's obvious you don't want a serious discussion on this as you're too close-minded in "Tory-hate" to hold one. And you've ignored my point about Lexit.

Ireland want their country back? Northern Ireland does not belong to Ireland OR the UK. Scotland is not a separate country, it is part of Great Britain, just as Wales and England are. Each nation has a segment of civilians that wish to be independent from the UK union; you must have missed the EVEL, English Parliament discussions. This is true of ALL British members but you chose to only highlight one. As I said, "interesting".
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late response, I've had a bereavement in the family.

So immigration wasn't the single biggest weapon used by Nazi Nige & his bonkers Brexit squad hey? Kindly explain this then.

image.jpg


"Nigel Farage says controversial anti-migrant poster 'won the referendum' for Brexit"

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...oster-won-the-referendum-for-brexit-1-9404360


"Farage: 'We would not have won without the immigration argument."

Nigel Farage believes that Brexit would not have "got over the line" if it hadn't been for the single issue of immigration

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/to...ne-brexit-comments-on-bbc-newsnight-1-5760680


"The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit"

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/brexit-immigration/487880/

Ireland want their country back? Northern Ireland does not belong to Ireland OR the UK.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true colonialist. In 1922, after the Irish War of Independence most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom to become the independent Irish Free State but under the Anglo-Irish Treaty the six northeastern counties, known as Northern Ireland, remained within the United Kingdom, creating the partition of Ireland.

So in effect, you're ignoring 'The Troubles' in Ireland? I suppose you believe they had no right to want their country to become one again after the English invasion? Luckily for us, the UK had a bit more about them when Hitler had designs on these green a pleasant lands.

So what is Scottish Independence about? Yes it belongs to the British Isles, but many Scottish see themselves as no more a part of the UK, as Belgium does to France, or Spain to Denmark. They're all a part of the same land mass, so I don't see your point.... AGAIN.

Also, you've not answered my question: Where do you stand on Ireland & Scotland wanting their countries back, or is the recovery of one's sovereignty only the preserve of the UK? A simple question, are you in favour of them gaining independance from the UK, much the same as the independence you want from the EU?
 
BobKowalski said:
There was also some cynicism in their approach. A desire to do May down and force a General Election but there were some genuine grounds for their opposition.
Click to expand...
All the "General Election" talk really soured my opinion of Labour. I wondered what was more important to them; gaining power or helping to conclude brexit.
By the same token, May and the Tories should have done more to include the whole House in the negotiations and put aside party politics, but they both come from opposing political stances and it was seen as a "May way or the Highway" approach.

Emotionally I am just done with it all. End it, one way or another.
 
Dribble said:
Sorry for the late response, I've had a bereavement in the family.

So immigration wasn't the single biggest weapon used by Nazi Nige & his bonkers Brexit squad hey? Kindly explain this then.

image.jpg


"Nigel Farage says controversial anti-migrant poster 'won the referendum' for Brexit"

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...oster-won-the-referendum-for-brexit-1-9404360


"Farage: 'We would not have won without the immigration argument."

Nigel Farage believes that Brexit would not have "got over the line" if it hadn't been for the single issue of immigration

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/to...ne-brexit-comments-on-bbc-newsnight-1-5760680


"The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit"

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/brexit-immigration/487880/



Spoken like a true colonialist. In 1922, after the Irish War of Independence most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom to become the independent Irish Free State but under the Anglo-Irish Treaty the six northeastern counties, known as Northern Ireland, remained within the United Kingdom, creating the partition of Ireland.

So in effect, you're ignoring 'The Troubles' in Ireland? I suppose you believe they had no right to want their country to become one again after the English invasion? Luckily for us, the UK had a bit more about them when Hitler had designs on these green a pleasant lands.

So what is Scottish Independence about? Yes it belongs to the British Isles, but many Scottish see themselves as no more a part of the UK, as Belgium does to France, or Spain to Denmark. They're all a part of the same land mass, so I don't see your point.... AGAIN.

Also, you've not answered my question: Where do you stand on Ireland & Scotland wanting their countries back, or is the recovery of one's sovereignty only the preserve of the UK? A simple question, are you in favour of them gaining independance from the UK, much the same as the independence you want from the EU?
Click to expand...
The fuck are you on about?

I've never, ever stated that immigration was a factor in my decision, nor is it even a topic I've been discussing.

Take your unbridled rage at Farage and direct it at someone who gives a shit.
 
bugsyblue said:
I voted remain and whilst I think it's still stupid to leave the EU I agree to an extent with your statement. If, and it's a big if, we can leave the EU with a trade partnership, allows us to do our own deals across the world, protects EU workers here and Brits abroad, somehow solves the Ireland issue, then I do think that's the only way to keep the majority content and for us to finally move on from this fucking mess of how many bloody years!

The problem is clearly whether we can do all those things mentioned above.
Click to expand...
People are probably sick of hearing me say it, but I was fully supportive of the UK re-joining the EFTA, who already has deals in place with the EU. That's the relationship I wanted the UK to have with Europe and the EU. That whole "ruletakers, not rulemakers" argument didn't resonate with me as it wasn't something I cared about.

I was fully surprised that the Govt. and Parl't didn't entertain the idea, but in the early days all the talk was of "Hard Brexit" and "soft brexit".
 
George Hannah said:
No, the Withdrawal Act was enacted in March 2017, it is now the law and means we exit the EU Treaty on the 31st October deal or no deal.
Click to expand...

No. Upon ratification the Govt will have to introduce the European Union (Withdrawal Act Implementation) Bill. You can’t just exit the Treaties because the U.K. is run on a mix of U.K. and EU law over a forty year timescale so you can’t have EU law lapsing without replacing it with an equivalent. It’s like software in a computer. You don’t terminate it without putting in another program to take over first.

This is why the Govt is banking on a raft of temporary mini deals to act as ‘patches’ to cover the legal void in the event of no deal.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Who was it agreed with? Think you've got your abbreviations confused bud, everyone else is referring to the Withdrawal Agreement (May's deal) when they use 'WA'. Can see how that might have caused you some confusion, glad to have cleared it up for you.
Click to expand...
Yes, my bad - I was simply making the point that that the Withdrawal Agreement is derived from the Act but it does not change exit date.
 
BobKowalski said:
No. Upon ratification the Govt will have to introduce the European Union (Withdrawal Act Implementation) Bill. You can’t just exit the Treaties because the U.K. is run on a mix of U.K. and EU law over a forty year timescale so you can’t have EU law lapsing without replacing it with an equivalent. It’s like software in a computer. You don’t terminate it without putting in another program to take over first.

This is why the Govt is banking on a raft of temporary mini deals to act as ‘patches’ to cover the legal void in the event of no deal.
Click to expand...
The ratification process in UK & associated EU law is automatic, if the time constraints have to be changed they will be to enable the stages to be completed - as you say both parties are required fill any gaps with interim arrangements until the legislation completes its predetermined passage.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
You are right and some people do say this, but if you were to ask them "Were there only British people involved in winning these wars?", you would get a very different answer in the vast majority of cases if not all. I don't believe there is a myth about who was involved in those victories, these comments, which I agree are ridiculous, are in a different context.
Click to expand...

But when asked about Brexit they revert to the myth that they have heard time and time again. As has already been posted on here today Leavers when questioned just repeat soundbites they have heard repeated over and over again by the usual suspects - they don't care about the truth they just want a simple outcome ( lets just get out now ) based on simple statements and that is just not about to happen.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
All the "General Election" talk really soured my opinion of Labour. I wondered what was more important to them; gaining power or helping to conclude brexit.
By the same token, May and the Tories should have done more to include the whole House in the negotiations and put aside party politics, but they both come from opposing political stances and it was seen as a "May way or the Highway" approach.

Emotionally I am just done with it all. End it, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Samaritans, ?
 
Ban-jani said:
I don’t disagree with any of that, the best situation would have been for May to get a better deal, for us to leave with it and then move on.

I think both sides would have accepted a deal with the EU and a free trade agreement.

Obviously this has passed now so my thoughts are that I’ll go along with whatever happens as long as it isn’t no deal.

I just think the damage will be too great.
Click to expand...
So the logic follows that the EU should have offered a deal that had any chance of getting through - rather that the utterly shit deal that they did engineer

That they are not making movement shows that they do jot actually want a deal - they want us either Remaining or locked in backstop limbo land

It follows that they are not to be so 'trusted' as BobK was naively saying yesterday
 
George Hannah said:
The ratification process in UK & associated EU law is automatic, if the time constraints have to be changed they will be to enable the stages to be completed - both parties are required fill any gaps with interim arrangements until the legislation completes its predetermined passage.
Click to expand...

If we pass the WA then A50 will be extended to allow time for it be properly ratified and implemented on both sides.

The ratification is not automatic. The WA has to be approved by member states under QMV and pass the European Parliament. As Barnier has acted within his mandate and their is consensus on the EU side this is likely to be straightforward.

The WA passing the house is ratifying the agreement but it does not implement the WA. That is done through the WA Impementation bill which along with the Trade Bill, Immigraton bill and a raft of other legislation replaces or converts EU law into U.K. law and allows us to set tariffs etc. Absent this legislation exiting becomes a legal, regulatory and security nightmare which is why you have the warnings against absenting without a deal.

The Govts no deal solution is to rely on the goodwill of the EU and our neighbours to help us out of this mess with temporary interim arrangements which will come at a price and are unsustainable in the long run. We are creating this ‘goodwill’ by threatening them with chaos. Go figure.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
That's your opinion. To many others it opens up the UK to the rest of the world and not be singularly tied to one bloc. For many, the current arrangement with the EU is holding them back. Leaving with a deal is the common ground, with only the hardcore opinions being aggrieved. Leaving with a deal satisfies the current majority of those who respected the referendum. Staying in would be seen as a rejection of one side of the argument, especially the arguement that gained the most support.

It would be unforgivable and would do nothing to end the matter, neither would leaving without a deal. Leaving the EU with a deal is now the only acceptable option.
Click to expand...

I agree that leaving with a deal is probably the best course now. But you asked what Labour’s excuse was and I provided one which I think is there position
 
BobKowalski said:
If we pass the WA then A50 will be extended to allow time for it be properly ratified and implemented on both sides.

The ratification is not automatic. The WA has to be approved by member states under QMV and pass the European Parliament. As Barnier has acted within his mandate and their is consensus on the EU side this is likely to be straightforward.

The WA passing the house is ratifying the agreement but it does not implement the WA. That is done through the WA Impementation bill which along with the Trade Bill, Immigraton bill and a raft of other legislation replaces or converts EU law into U.K. law and allows us to set tariffs etc. Absent this legislation exiting becomes a legal, regulatory and security nightmare which is why you have the warnings against absenting without a deal.

The Govts no deal solution is to rely on the goodwill of the EU and our neighbours to help us out of this mess with temporary interim arrangements which will come at a price and are unsustainable in the long run. We are creating this ‘goodwill’ by threatening them with chaos. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Plus even with no deal, Johnson is creating a rod for his own back by denying the HOC time to pass the necessary legislation required, which will literally take weeks. Without that legislation there will be utter legal chaos internally in the UK on the 1st of November.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top