Quizzes & Puzzles39 mins 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
Take the time to read this. We are not alone in foreseeing the collapse of the pyramid scheme.
https:/
https:/
Here is the first part from yesterday.
https:/
https:/
“What Leave voters in 2016 *actually* wanted is difficult to be sure of,..”
“This is getting tedious.”
Indeed it is – extremely tedious. In fact, more than that, it borders on insulting the intelligence of many people – both Leavers and Remainers.
It was made abundantly clear before the referendum and mainly by the Remain campaign that leaving would mean quitting the Single Market and the Customs Union. There was absolutely no doubt about that. Other perils of leaving were made equally clear and those voting (either way) should have been in no doubt whatsoever what the main consequences of leaving or remaining would be. Although it was suggested that some of the more outlandish scenarios described would be avoided by common sense (such as aircraft being unable to travel between the UK and the Continent and people dying for lack of medicines) there was no doubt that the UK would no longer partake in those two main schemes.
Now we find that various scenarios for “leaving” involve either totally or partially remaining in those institutions for lengths of time varying between a few months and forever. I just wonder how the remain side would feel, had the vote gone their way, if it was suggested that although the UK is to remain as a member we will, nonetheless, be quitting the Customs Union and the Single Market. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that “Leaving” would be achieved whilst remaining in the SM and CU. Those two are the principle levers which the EU uses to control its members and to remain in them is not leaving the EU at all. It is scarcely the electorate’s fault that the government chose not to make arrangements to mitigate the effects of leaving from the outset and is now panicking because its attempted capitulation to a semi-member purgatory looks like being kicked into touch.
“This is getting tedious.”
Indeed it is – extremely tedious. In fact, more than that, it borders on insulting the intelligence of many people – both Leavers and Remainers.
It was made abundantly clear before the referendum and mainly by the Remain campaign that leaving would mean quitting the Single Market and the Customs Union. There was absolutely no doubt about that. Other perils of leaving were made equally clear and those voting (either way) should have been in no doubt whatsoever what the main consequences of leaving or remaining would be. Although it was suggested that some of the more outlandish scenarios described would be avoided by common sense (such as aircraft being unable to travel between the UK and the Continent and people dying for lack of medicines) there was no doubt that the UK would no longer partake in those two main schemes.
Now we find that various scenarios for “leaving” involve either totally or partially remaining in those institutions for lengths of time varying between a few months and forever. I just wonder how the remain side would feel, had the vote gone their way, if it was suggested that although the UK is to remain as a member we will, nonetheless, be quitting the Customs Union and the Single Market. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that “Leaving” would be achieved whilst remaining in the SM and CU. Those two are the principle levers which the EU uses to control its members and to remain in them is not leaving the EU at all. It is scarcely the electorate’s fault that the government chose not to make arrangements to mitigate the effects of leaving from the outset and is now panicking because its attempted capitulation to a semi-member purgatory looks like being kicked into touch.
Meanwhile the treachery goes on as the cuckold imp Bercow bends the accepted rules, of the already disgraced commons, to facilitate a further deliberate disruption of the procedure to resign from the EUSSR pyramid scheme.
""Members of Parliament have challenged Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow for allowing a vote on an amendment intended to derail a “No Deal” Brexit, in what may be construed as a breach of Commons precedent.
It is widely expected that Prime Minister Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement will be voted down next week, which would leave No Deal as the default Brexit option. Current rules dictate that Mrs May would have to make a statement within 21 days on the Government’s plan of action, with a Commons vote in the following seven days.
However, Mr Bercow accepted a business motion amendment from Dominic Grieve, ad hoc leader of the anti-Brexit rebels within the Tory Party, calling for the Government to go back to Parliament within just three days of the “meaningful vote” — to give MPs an opportunity to try and block a No Deal Brexit, by all accounts.""
//Several MPs challenged the Speaker with points of order, with Tory Brexiteer Peter Bone asking for an explanation as to why, when he had attempted to propose an amendment to the same motion, he had been refused by the Table Office, saying “I was told it would be totally out of order and there would be no other amendments filed.”//
//A former director of legislative affairs at Number 10, Nikki da Costa, said: “More than anything this is not just overturning something the House accepted in a business motion, it is overturning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and procedure voted on and approved in both Houses with much debate and scrutiny, and indeed which Grieve accepted on floor of the House.” Andrea Leadsom, a Cabinet Brexiteer and Leader of the House of Commons, asked Mr Bercow to release the advice he received from the Clerk of the House of Commons on whether the amendment should have been accepted, but he declined to do so.//
Remember the "Fixed Term Parliamentary Act" 2011? The one that we all thought might be a good idea? It also removed the Royal Prerogative to dissolve parliament act. Shame that now is it not?
""Members of Parliament have challenged Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow for allowing a vote on an amendment intended to derail a “No Deal” Brexit, in what may be construed as a breach of Commons precedent.
It is widely expected that Prime Minister Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement will be voted down next week, which would leave No Deal as the default Brexit option. Current rules dictate that Mrs May would have to make a statement within 21 days on the Government’s plan of action, with a Commons vote in the following seven days.
However, Mr Bercow accepted a business motion amendment from Dominic Grieve, ad hoc leader of the anti-Brexit rebels within the Tory Party, calling for the Government to go back to Parliament within just three days of the “meaningful vote” — to give MPs an opportunity to try and block a No Deal Brexit, by all accounts.""
//Several MPs challenged the Speaker with points of order, with Tory Brexiteer Peter Bone asking for an explanation as to why, when he had attempted to propose an amendment to the same motion, he had been refused by the Table Office, saying “I was told it would be totally out of order and there would be no other amendments filed.”//
//A former director of legislative affairs at Number 10, Nikki da Costa, said: “More than anything this is not just overturning something the House accepted in a business motion, it is overturning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and procedure voted on and approved in both Houses with much debate and scrutiny, and indeed which Grieve accepted on floor of the House.” Andrea Leadsom, a Cabinet Brexiteer and Leader of the House of Commons, asked Mr Bercow to release the advice he received from the Clerk of the House of Commons on whether the amendment should have been accepted, but he declined to do so.//
Remember the "Fixed Term Parliamentary Act" 2011? The one that we all thought might be a good idea? It also removed the Royal Prerogative to dissolve parliament act. Shame that now is it not?
I have thought about my integrity, and I am quite content that I have plenty of it, but thank you for the suggestion Naomi.
No, ymb, you are still wrong about understanding me. It is quite simple, really: Brexit is turning into a disaster, and I want to have nothing to do with it. You are completely wrong that a "No Deal" exit would have been, or still could be, the better course, and I think it is absolutely right to continue to argue against that. What else do you expect me to do?
The far less democratic position is to insist that your opponents must abandon their beliefs and support positions that they condemned. No. This is not how democracy works. It never has been, and it never will be. That is for you to recognise, not for me to abandon. And, lest I be accused again of hypocrisy, I can assure you that were the positions reversed I would absolutely understand if Brexiteers had continued to fight on in the belief that EU membership was bad for the UK. Again, how could they do anything less, if it truly was as bad as they claimed?
Take back your apology if you must. I am sorry that you think ill of me. But you are quite wrong about me, and I hope that in time I have an opportunity to prove that more completely. On Brexit we fundamentally disagree, and, sadly, the shadow of the 2016 referendum does, I concede, make my position look difficult to defend. But not impossible. All I ask you to do is listen, without prejudice, and try to understand that this is not about thwarting democracy but about fighting for what I believe to be right.
No, ymb, you are still wrong about understanding me. It is quite simple, really: Brexit is turning into a disaster, and I want to have nothing to do with it. You are completely wrong that a "No Deal" exit would have been, or still could be, the better course, and I think it is absolutely right to continue to argue against that. What else do you expect me to do?
The far less democratic position is to insist that your opponents must abandon their beliefs and support positions that they condemned. No. This is not how democracy works. It never has been, and it never will be. That is for you to recognise, not for me to abandon. And, lest I be accused again of hypocrisy, I can assure you that were the positions reversed I would absolutely understand if Brexiteers had continued to fight on in the belief that EU membership was bad for the UK. Again, how could they do anything less, if it truly was as bad as they claimed?
Take back your apology if you must. I am sorry that you think ill of me. But you are quite wrong about me, and I hope that in time I have an opportunity to prove that more completely. On Brexit we fundamentally disagree, and, sadly, the shadow of the 2016 referendum does, I concede, make my position look difficult to defend. But not impossible. All I ask you to do is listen, without prejudice, and try to understand that this is not about thwarting democracy but about fighting for what I believe to be right.
I've had to put up with Wilson, Heath (who dragged us i, Callaghan and (worst of all) Blair. I don't change my opinions because I've lost; I continue to argue my case; and I hope that the electorate will have learnt my wisdom next time round.
What I don't do is bellyache, cry "Foul!" and try to subvert the popular mandate.
Admittedly the rapid transition of power following an election in the UK does offer the scope for mischief which the gap between electoral vote and inauguration do in the States, far less the two years of the A50 notice period.
What I don't do is bellyache, cry "Foul!" and try to subvert the popular mandate.
Admittedly the rapid transition of power following an election in the UK does offer the scope for mischief which the gap between electoral vote and inauguration do in the States, far less the two years of the A50 notice period.
Can you not distinguish between attacks on opinions and attacks on character, Naomi? What you are doing is very clearly the latter, which is completely counter to the spirit of AB, and equally clearly *not* the former.
If you can't show actual respect, then at least have the common courtesy and good manners to hide its absence.
If you can't show actual respect, then at least have the common courtesy and good manners to hide its absence.
Golly! Now you’re preaching at me across two threads! That sort of thing is designed to silence the opposition but it doesn’t work. My opinion of your argument arises from your constant misrepresentation of others and until you stop doing that my opinion won’t change. I object to being misrepresented.
It is ridiculous isn't it Jim.. the condescending tone, directed not at your debate, but at your character. It's a technique used when you've nothing more to contribute, but want to still try and demean your opponent debaters points. It's a common tactic to feel like you've won a debate, most commonly used in primary school playgrounds.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles76 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles89 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Technology120 mins ago
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.