Another new Brexit thread

[blueparrot]

No, I am sorry, when MPs voted against May's deal they did so knowing full well that the public had mandated that we leave, and that the A50 2-year process was enacted by parliament with a huge majority.

To vote against May's deal was to ignore the mandate.

ignore
/ɪɡˈnɔː/
Learn to pronounce
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.​

If you want to play with semantics and to say instead of "ignore" it was "chose to disregard" then you can try. But to most people, that means "ignore".

Unless we leave at the end of the month or next spring, or next summer in which case it was delayed not ignored.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Remain will almost certainly win against either a no deal or a specific type of deal, in another referendum.

I think Remain would be just as likely to win as last time.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The only fly in the ointment is how many of hard line Leavers will vote for Farage. Otherwise I agree.

I'm surprised Johnson has been so quick to rule out a pact with the Brexit party to be honest. Maybe he figures doing so would alienate more moderate Tories. But he's not just downplayed the possiblility he's burned his bridges and categorically ruled it out. He may live to regret that decision if we go beyond October 31.

I still think there's a chance we will be out in 3 weeks with a deal however.

Again, I agree with every word.
Binning Farage off may be problematic, a coalition would storm a GE, yet he's gone balls out with it. I think a deal will be done too, if not, and he's forced into another extension, then, (cue horrified gasps), I believe he will switch tack and join in with Farages no deal position.
We'll then see if the country will go for it.

 

[Ban-jani]

I think Remain would be just as likely to win as last time.

It could go either way if it was up against a vague “leave” choice again but if it was pitted against a specific deal or no deal specifically, it’d win for sure.

The leave vote is split between different shades of leaving.

 

[George Hannah]

Can you explain youre ethical rational for such a most counterintuitive and onconventional aproach? I don't often hear people saying what boils down to "i talk shit so people can expose my shit".What do you even mean by this. Which of my counterarguments do you consider wrong, given that i presented quite a number of them?You mean, youre so unrepresentative of youre own view that you won't even go into detail on an argument presented to you as fact and proving you wrong? Youre ownly comeback is "i, in my infinite wisdom, judge it wrong"?To be frank, you have the burden of the proof in regards to youre own claim that:
It will not do to refer/deflect to the book as if "one should just try to get what youre pointing at". Having the burden of the proof means that YOU must be able to present an analysis of the book 1984 yourself and point to the various elements which to youre view prove it's relevance to the judgement you make regarding the EU. If you can't then it proves youre just full of shit and are too stubborn to admit youre wrong when rightfully scrutinised besides being so terribly intellectually dishonest to try to wrigle out of it with a lot of deflection and also being quite unrespectfull to the great pieces of literature provided by us by the Honerable Brit know to us all as George Orwell. True, it's really but a irrelevant post on some internet forum, but you couldn't be more wrong in more rediculous ways imho, it goes so far as to perceive that youre conciously trolling and therby being rude to people here and especially disrespectfull to Orwell's legacy.You wanna really know what 1984 is in terms of country's George? Maybe you should look at China for a different example. Nothing says 1984 quite so much like having a great firewall, nationalised media and even a soial credit system. Thats not Europe, its simply not you *******

Thanks, have a good day.

 

[mcfc1632]

Bar a few extreme nutters it doesn't exist other than in the heads of some that need it as an enemy and are seemingly serially offended by anything deemed English or anyone claiming to be proud of being English.

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens can quite rightly proclaim their pride in their nations yet to do the same with England brings on scowls and accusations of racism, fascism and right wing political association.

More often than not from fellow English citizens themselves.

Sad really.

Correct - in general there are people that are starting to care that England's interest have some level of input - hardly Nationalists

In regards to the 'air time' English interests get a raw deal whilst so much emphasis is placed on Irish abs Scottish Nationalists

 

[mcfc1632]

I'll give you a hint.

17.41m people voted to leave, when support for leaving was trailing prior to the referendum being announced. People were not happy, from what I remember and it only served to fuel the independence fires.

Not sure patience and logic are going to work

 

[The perfect fumble]

I would urge anyone who wants to know why the Tories are doing what they're doing to read this.....

Brexit is a necessary crisis – it reveals Britain’s true place in the world

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-crisis-global-capitalism-britain-place-world

 

[BobKowalski]

No, I am sorry, when MPs voted against May's deal they did so knowing full well that the public had mandated that we leave, and that the A50 2-year process was enacted by parliament with a huge majority.

To vote against May's deal was to ignore the mandate.

ignore
/ɪɡˈnɔː/
Learn to pronounce
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.​

If you want to play with semantics and to say instead of "ignore" it was "chose to disregard" then you can try. But to most people, that means "ignore".

Weren’t Johnson, ERG, Farage, Brexit Party and most of the Brexit supporting cast and voters against the Withdrawal Agreement and wanted it voted down?

 

[blueinsa]

Weren’t Johnson, ERG, Farage, Brexit Party and most of the Brexit supporting cast and voters against the Withdrawal Agreement and wanted it voted down?

Absolutely but and this is important Bob.....far from alone.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Thanks, have a good day.

Oh but please post some more utter rediculous nonsense that frankly disrespects the intention of British literature that much that it becomes my ethical duty to point how frankly moronic it is. I don't mind talking down on such BS when justified and the potential positive result could be that more people just completly ignore whatever you say in the future.

 

[mcfc1632]

I fully get that. but that doesn't answer the question ( im not expecting anyone to actually have an answer mind you, im just mulling things over in my head ). was it a failure of Cameron to ask the right questions vs the EU actually shitting on us... the general public's view was certainly the latter, despite him getting what he apparently asked for.

Just trying to see what the root cause was, inaccurate representation of what people thought he was gonna ask, inaccurate representation of the results?

He relied on Rodgers to support him in negotiations who - being totally up the EU arse - advised to ask for 3/4 of fuck all to avoid disappointment

 

[BobKowalski]

Absolutely but and this is important Bob.....far from alone.

So to clarify was voting the WA down a vote against Brexit or for Brexit?

 

[George Hannah]

Oh but please post some more utter rediculous nonsense that frankly disrespects the intention of British literature that much that it becomes my ethical duty to point how frankly moronic it is. I don't mind talking down on such BS when justified and the potential positive result could be that more people just completly ignore whatever you say in the future.

Have a fluff and go for a waddle, you'll quack a lot better afterwards. :)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Andrew Neil's quote uses a troublemaking translation, that has clearly been picked up and copied across hackdom.

What Juncker said better translates to 'decline of the UK', not 'collapse'. However if you drop the section from the French website into Google Translate, it will say 'collapse' and hey presto, misrepresentation.

Also excised was that the rest of the sentence talked of ".. and a weakening of growth shoots across Europe". He absolutely wasn't talking about the UK alone disintegrating.

 

[blueinsa]

So to clarify was voting the WA down a vote against Brexit or for Brexit?

For a minority it was for as they thought it wasn't acceptable which i agreed with at the time.

For the majority it was about stopping brexit altogether and for party political motive.

Again though the question was has "parliament" respected the result and promise to enact by leaving the EU and the answer as far as I am concerned is a resounding no.

How many of the Tory rebels like Grieve and Soubry etc voted for the WA? What was/is their motive?

 

[west didsblue]

Absolutely but and this is important Bob.....far from alone.

However they were the ones that were responsible for the government’s red lines.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Have a fluff and go for a waddle, you'll quack a lot better afterwards. :)

I don't think you read enough of George George. Or ... well, youre to dense to get it :p

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I see forum favourite SF's Michelle O'Neill rules out any role for a NI Assembly in the backstop resolution - only a local emanation of the British state - so much for the DUP veto eh @mancity2012_eamo ?

Haven't seen the detail of what is supposedly now being offered, but my immediate response to all the hoo-haa was, have the DUP supported this?

Because with double-majority within the assembly, I can't see the DUP going for a border down the Irish Sea, for the exact same reasons they went for it with the veto in the first offer.

On the face of it, it looks logical, but I believe the only mechanism that is already agreed (GFA) for the time limit release on the backstop, is a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I do appreciate that view. But it's the "misrepresentation" and "not fit for purpose" aspect that's the problem.

If I buy a car and it doesn't perform as promised - the brakes are dangerous (approaching a cliff), the steering veers to the right, and keeping the car is going to be a drain on my resources for decades - why would I want to keep it just because I'd signed a contract... especially when the seller (or rather its arbitration service) has said I can just repudiate the contract?

You are basing your desire to scrap/vote again on your own assumptions on what may go wrong. These points being made are all your own, and other remainers, views of what may happen. They are not a reason to ignore a vote that you were unsuccessful in winning, simply a request to do it all again in the hope you may get the result you want.
It's no good trying to say how disastrous something will be, if that tack did not work on the populace before the vote, which it plainly didn't.