News1 min ago
Cross Party Treachery Attempt.....
77 Answers
https:/
So if we do drop out with no deal, lets make it even harder to get things sorted eh?
The remainiacs are so determined to stop us attaining freedom from their beloved EUSSR.
So if we do drop out with no deal, lets make it even harder to get things sorted eh?
The remainiacs are so determined to stop us attaining freedom from their beloved EUSSR.
Answers
//There is no honour in economic suicide. // Haha and they talk about lowering the voting age. Bless. Have a look at the latest German economic projections. Ohh Dear. France on fire. Germany sinking fast(when they have to pay their own way it is going to go titzen uppen). Italy about to strike for freedom, and the Belgians and Dutch falling over themselves to be...
21:46 Tue 08th Jan 2019
Duncan-Smith even parroted the two desperate arguments often trotted out: MPs effectively voted for Brexit when they sanctioned the result of the referendum and it can’t be changed now.
And the even more ridiculous argument that because 80% of voters at the 2017 election supported parties which claimed in their manifestos to want to honour the referendum result, ergo 80% of Britons support a no deal.
Which is so ludicrous as to actually be insulting.
And the even more ridiculous argument that because 80% of voters at the 2017 election supported parties which claimed in their manifestos to want to honour the referendum result, ergo 80% of Britons support a no deal.
Which is so ludicrous as to actually be insulting.
-- answer removed --
//There is no honour in economic suicide. //
Haha and they talk about lowering the voting age. Bless. Have a look at the latest German economic projections. Ohh Dear. France on fire. Germany sinking fast(when they have to pay their own way it is going to go titzen uppen). Italy about to strike for freedom, and the Belgians and Dutch falling over themselves to be at the head of the queue for cross Channel trade with Great Britain when we close the Calais/Dover weak link. The pyramid scheme will still be there when we break the shackles Jim. You are not being prevented from leaving home and going to live with a "kind" neighbour. Is that what you will do?
Haha and they talk about lowering the voting age. Bless. Have a look at the latest German economic projections. Ohh Dear. France on fire. Germany sinking fast(when they have to pay their own way it is going to go titzen uppen). Italy about to strike for freedom, and the Belgians and Dutch falling over themselves to be at the head of the queue for cross Channel trade with Great Britain when we close the Calais/Dover weak link. The pyramid scheme will still be there when we break the shackles Jim. You are not being prevented from leaving home and going to live with a "kind" neighbour. Is that what you will do?
If you actually bothered to check the voting age thread, Togo, you saw that I didn't argue for lowering the voting age, but don't let that stop you spouting your usual inaccurate guff.
TTT -- all I can say is that I hope I'm wrong. I can't see the point in repeating the general arguments of the last few months. Expert analysis, as well as common sense, should tell you that if the UK drops out of the Single Market and Customs Union without a sensible replacement for them, then it will be highly damaging to all concerned, and that should be enough to tell you that a No Deal withdrawal is, at the very least, something to be put off until absolutely all other options have been exhausted.
* * * * *
OG -- democracy requires, by definition, consensus, care, and proper, wide-ranging scrutiny of decisions -- if not, then it would be some form of tyranny or dictatorship (I use the Greek sense of these words here, rather than the more modern one). None of this is undermined if the government suffers what is, in actual fact, a relatively insignificant defeat.
Let's just clarify what the government defeat means in practice: it takes away unilateral power from the government and the Treasury -- that is, from Philip Hammond and Theresa May -- to introduce whatever regulations they like without consultation. Those regulations could have been very wide-ranging indeed. The amendment simply insists that Parliamentary approval will be needed for these in the case of a No Deal withdrawal, or that there must be a Deal, or that Brexit has been delayed.
In other words, it insists only that Parliament be involved in the process. It is frankly nonsensical to suggest that forcing the process of our withdrawal to involve greater democratic scrutiny is somehow an attack on democracy.
TTT -- all I can say is that I hope I'm wrong. I can't see the point in repeating the general arguments of the last few months. Expert analysis, as well as common sense, should tell you that if the UK drops out of the Single Market and Customs Union without a sensible replacement for them, then it will be highly damaging to all concerned, and that should be enough to tell you that a No Deal withdrawal is, at the very least, something to be put off until absolutely all other options have been exhausted.
* * * * *
OG -- democracy requires, by definition, consensus, care, and proper, wide-ranging scrutiny of decisions -- if not, then it would be some form of tyranny or dictatorship (I use the Greek sense of these words here, rather than the more modern one). None of this is undermined if the government suffers what is, in actual fact, a relatively insignificant defeat.
Let's just clarify what the government defeat means in practice: it takes away unilateral power from the government and the Treasury -- that is, from Philip Hammond and Theresa May -- to introduce whatever regulations they like without consultation. Those regulations could have been very wide-ranging indeed. The amendment simply insists that Parliamentary approval will be needed for these in the case of a No Deal withdrawal, or that there must be a Deal, or that Brexit has been delayed.
In other words, it insists only that Parliament be involved in the process. It is frankly nonsensical to suggest that forcing the process of our withdrawal to involve greater democratic scrutiny is somehow an attack on democracy.
It is also worth adding that this amendment was one of several debated on today -- some of the others were rather more significant in terms of their attempt to limit the ability of the government to unilaterally respond to Brexit. One such amendment would have required the Treasury to provide a comprehensive review of the effect of any decisions, including their different impacts on Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within a week of the passage of the Act -- a demand that certainly would have shackled the government entirely, since it's not clear how that would have been realistically achievable.
All the other amendments of this type were defeated. Again, I am compelled to ask, why is even asking these questions a threat to democracy? It is completely reasonable that this scrutiny be applied, and that legislation related to the EU isn't just ushered through without questions asked.
All the other amendments of this type were defeated. Again, I am compelled to ask, why is even asking these questions a threat to democracy? It is completely reasonable that this scrutiny be applied, and that legislation related to the EU isn't just ushered through without questions asked.
"...[no deal] something to be put off until absolutely all other options have been exhausted."
All other options (bar remaining) have been exhausted. The EU has made it quite clear that no amendments to the "Agreement" will be made. That agreement will not be countenanced by the Commons (unless at least 50% + 1 of them really have lost their marbles). So that leaves No Deal.
All other options (bar remaining) have been exhausted. The EU has made it quite clear that no amendments to the "Agreement" will be made. That agreement will not be countenanced by the Commons (unless at least 50% + 1 of them really have lost their marbles). So that leaves No Deal.
And let's finally stop this nonsense that the UK decided to Leave with a No Deal arrangement. Nothing about the detail was specified; therefore, that has been left to Parliament to arrange. They are well within their rights, and their duties, to say that such-and-such an arrangement on which we leave is unacceptable. After all, it's not exactly uncontroversial on AB that the current Withdrawal Agreement should be rejected. But as soon as you have established the principle that one form of Brexit can be rejected because it is terrible, then so too can any other given form -- including No Deal.
These sorts of contradiction lie all over the place in the Brexit philosophy. You want Parliament to reclaim its sovereignty, only to demand that it abandon that sovereignty again and be obliged to give government carte blanche when it comes to Brexit; except on the draft Withdrawal agreement, which it must also reject; except that Parliament is then not allowed to get involved in the next step; except that it has to allow preparations for no deal; except that it then can't scrutinise *those* either...
If Brexit is to go ahead, let it be when we are -- when Parliament is -- satisfied with the means to carry it out. Either Parliament is sovereign or it is not. Make your choice, and then accept that it must have a full and proper role in shaping the future of the country.
And, if you don't like what Parliament does, hold it to account at the next election.
These sorts of contradiction lie all over the place in the Brexit philosophy. You want Parliament to reclaim its sovereignty, only to demand that it abandon that sovereignty again and be obliged to give government carte blanche when it comes to Brexit; except on the draft Withdrawal agreement, which it must also reject; except that Parliament is then not allowed to get involved in the next step; except that it has to allow preparations for no deal; except that it then can't scrutinise *those* either...
If Brexit is to go ahead, let it be when we are -- when Parliament is -- satisfied with the means to carry it out. Either Parliament is sovereign or it is not. Make your choice, and then accept that it must have a full and proper role in shaping the future of the country.
And, if you don't like what Parliament does, hold it to account at the next election.
The devil's in the detail, Naomi. If you have decided *where* you want to go, but have not decided *how*, then that still leaves a decision to be made. And it may turn out that the practicalities are harder than you appreciated.
What Leave voters in 2016 *actually* wanted is difficult to be sure of, and you are being far too bold in asserting that most of them wanted "No Deal". You yourself don't, for that matter, since "fulfilling our obligations" means, by definition, reaching a Withdrawal Agreement.
In any case, it should be fairly obvious that there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, and that therefore what you want is not going to happen if the matter is left solely to MPs. They have good reason, too, to not want "No Deal" -- whilst you may not take seriously the threat to the UK that crashing out of the EU brings, most everyone else does.
I think you really ought to rethink your dismissal of a further referendum. At this point it's probably your only chance remaining of getting what you voted for in 2016.
What Leave voters in 2016 *actually* wanted is difficult to be sure of, and you are being far too bold in asserting that most of them wanted "No Deal". You yourself don't, for that matter, since "fulfilling our obligations" means, by definition, reaching a Withdrawal Agreement.
In any case, it should be fairly obvious that there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, and that therefore what you want is not going to happen if the matter is left solely to MPs. They have good reason, too, to not want "No Deal" -- whilst you may not take seriously the threat to the UK that crashing out of the EU brings, most everyone else does.
I think you really ought to rethink your dismissal of a further referendum. At this point it's probably your only chance remaining of getting what you voted for in 2016.
//What Leave voters in 2016 *actually* wanted is difficult to be sure of, and you are being far too bold in asserting that most of them wanted "No Deal". You yourself don't, for that matter, since "fulfilling our obligations" means, by definition, reaching a Withdrawal Agreement//
This is getting tedious. I didn't vote for a "Deal", I voted to "Leave". "Leave" was not a vague, shadowy concept. It was clearly defined by all the organs of state, big business and a compliant media: you're going to trash Britain's economy by getting out of the EU free market and its common standards and its transnational court. Despite which the stoopids chose, perversely, to vote against their own best interests (as defined, of course, by their intellectual superiors).
"fulfilling our obligations"? That's paying the outstanding bar bill (quite large in my case) before you leave. It's what honest people do.
This is getting tedious. I didn't vote for a "Deal", I voted to "Leave". "Leave" was not a vague, shadowy concept. It was clearly defined by all the organs of state, big business and a compliant media: you're going to trash Britain's economy by getting out of the EU free market and its common standards and its transnational court. Despite which the stoopids chose, perversely, to vote against their own best interests (as defined, of course, by their intellectual superiors).
"fulfilling our obligations"? That's paying the outstanding bar bill (quite large in my case) before you leave. It's what honest people do.
I too voted to leave. I was sort of happy to go along with a deal to appease those that voted remain but, Ias I and many other who voted leave suspected, the EU would never countenance such a deal. From the outset they were determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to vote to leave the Bloc.
You jim will do anything to get your way, despite the fact you lost.
I apologised yesterday for misunderstanding your posts. With these additional ones I really dont think I did so I take my apology back. Now I really do think I understand you, you do not want to abide by the democratic vote and you wail come up with any excuse, accusation or make things up to get your way.
You jim will do anything to get your way, despite the fact you lost.
I apologised yesterday for misunderstanding your posts. With these additional ones I really dont think I did so I take my apology back. Now I really do think I understand you, you do not want to abide by the democratic vote and you wail come up with any excuse, accusation or make things up to get your way.
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.