Brexit!

[Foxhateram]

1 hour ago, BlueSi13 said:

Not going to happen, even the worst case scenarios don't predict that, rather a slight drop in GDP GROWTH:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168964684764131328.html

 

The UK has nothing to fear from a No Deal Brexit, sure a deal would be preferable.  But it will be FAR from the war, famine and pestilence some have been screaming from the rooftops.

 

Small price to pay for us to stay out of Guy Verhofstadt's dream of empire IMO.

I would say a 6 percent drop in house prices, a freeze on interest rates and a predicted increase in unemployment is a little more than a slight drop in GDP. 

 

EU isn't an empire or a dream of one for goodness sake. Even the hardest BREXIT supporters can't surely buy into that trash!? 

 

In times of possible war and potential worldwide financial crashes. Together is better. Freedom of movement is better and cheaper taxes is better. Not mentioning keeping trade deals, food suppliers and retaining our industrial presence. BREXIT being a word has already lost us several manufacturing contracts, causing closures, and therefore redundancies. 

 

Look at it this way. How does the EU effect you right now? Personally maybe not much, but as a country we heavily benefit for various reasons 

 

Will we have a better way of living after we leave? No. In fact life will be a lot harder. 

 

So what do you personally gain from BREXIT? Nothing? So why have a harder life? 

Edited 16 September 2019 by Foxhateram

[Foxhateram]

1 hour ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

This became legally binding on the 29th of March 2017 when MP's voted to invoke Article 50.

 

When you say we don't actually have to implement the result as it was just "advisory" I wonder what you'd have been arguing if remain had won.  In fact imagine remain had won but we had a 75% majority of MP's who supported Brexit (as opposed to the 75% who supported remain now) and decided to take us out regardless.  I assume you wouldn't have any complaints about that?

This argument is irritating. There was no majority. A referendum, no matter what is said on the propoganda released, is only a poll of opinion. It is not a form of elective vote therefore there is no lawful obligation to follow it through. 

 

If it were an elective vote. The split wouldn't have been clear enough to call a majority and the vote would have been thrown out anyway. 

 

Remainers are complaining because we are taking the hard evidence and facts laid out by advisors from several different areas of discipline who are all claiming BREXIT to be poor for their area. Banks, manufacturers, trade, fuel etc. We are considering the personal effects BREXIT will have on our families and our work places. 

 

I don't care about this percentage of voters said this, or that 75 percent of mps want this. I don't care about whether or not we are sovereign, I have no care for blue passports and have no problem with our current immigration policies.

 

What I do care about is making life as easy as possible for me, my family and future generations. I can tell you now, BREXIT will make things a darn site harder than it already is! Not better! 

Edited 16 September 2019 by Foxhateram

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

This became legally binding on the 29th of March 2017 when MP's voted to invoke Article 50.

 

When you say we don't actually have to implement the result as it was just "advisory" I wonder what you'd have been arguing if remain had won.  In fact imagine remain had won but we had a 75% majority of MP's who supported Brexit (as opposed to the 75% who supported remain now) and decided to take us out regardless.  I assume you wouldn't have any complaints about that?

Has to be pointed out that the key phrase highlighted above can only refer to the government at the time. No decision by one government can bind a future government. The government that made the promise highlighted was effectively swept away when May lost her overall majority and the current parliament, dysfunctional as it is, appears to be a reasonable reflection of opinion in the country at large (split fairly evenly in/out, no majority for no-deal).

 

None of the parties campaigned during the election explicitly endorsing no-deal other than the Tories throw away negotiating line of “no deal is better than a bad deal”. Labour was (and still is) explicitly soft Brexit. What has changed apart from discovery of a whole mess of problems associated with any form of Brexit, is that the Tory party has lurched to the right, and the ERG tail is now wagging the dog.

Edited 16 September 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Sly]

I’m a conservative. Have been since I could vote 20 years ago. 
 

No way I’d vote for that clown Boris.

 

I didn’t vote in the partly election as I didn’t see either as a great leader.

 

I won’t be renewing my membership. I’ll now become a floating voter.

 

I see reasons for alignment with our European nations and believe that is the best way forwards. 

[StanSP]

 

 

 

[Facecloth]

8 hours ago, Strokes said:

I think this is what he is getting at.

 

https://fullfact.org/law/article-50-bill/

 

Its quite interesting at the end of that fullfact article @BlueSi13, which I didn’t realise or consider. Although it was bestowed on the PM to trigger article 50, there is no law that says we have to leave.

I wonder if that is deliberate 🤔

He might have been, but still in there, same as what I posted, there is no legal obligation to leave. Even though leave won and we triggered article 50, we don't have to to legally leave. The sentence on the leaflet is not a legally binding contract. Whether we have to morally is another discission. 

 

Now people might cite the party manifestos at the last election. Yes they did pledge to leave, but again based on a non legally binding promise made by a previous government prior to an advosory referendum. And just because something is in a manifesto doesn't mean it will happen, thats how our parliament works. If it can't be voted through it doesn't become law.

 

So like I say morally we might have to leave, but I'm just stating fact, there is no legal obligation to do so.

[FerrisBueller]

11 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

They sure did:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/david-cameron/news/91572/official-eu-remain-campaign

That doesn't make it right? It means we have massive flaws in our legal and parliamentary systems. It should be mega-voided.

[Voll Blau]

12 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

When you say people, you mean you and Swan Lesta?  Embarrassed!?  FFS 

 

How is trying to force the PM to ask for extension, give complete control over to the EU to dictate terms and duration and then force the PM to accept whatever the EU offers as "properly scrutinising executive decisions"?  Illogical indeed.  Delusional certainly.

No, when I say people - I mean all of the people replying to it seriously on Twitter below a post from a political account, which captions the video as if it is a serious suggestion - and makes out that the clip is recent. Never mind that the clip is actually three years old or just a bunch of lads taking the piss at football.

 

I am loath to use the term "fake news", but this is an example of the exact kind of disinformation which is poisoning our national discourse, and you should be embarrassed to have shared it - even if you claim it's in jest.

 

 

11 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

 

The UK has nothing to fear from a No Deal Brexit, sure a deal would be preferable.  But it will be FAR from the war, famine and pestilence some have been screaming from the rooftops.

 

Small price to pay for us to stay out of Guy Verhofstadt's dream of empire IMO.

Maybe you'd like to tell that to the family members of mine who've already been given advanced prescriptions for regular medication because their doctors aren't certain what's going to happen over the next few months. Or maybe you could just tell their doctors? I mean, I doubt they're in as qualified a position as you to make judgments about what is already happening to medical supplies because of the uncertainty caused by a potential no deal scenario, let alone it actually happening, so if you just tell them they've "nothing to fear" all should be sound.

[BlueSi13]

10 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

I would say a 6 percent drop in house prices, a freeze on interest rates and a predicted increase in unemployment is a little more than a slight drop in GDP. 

 

EU isn't an empire or a dream of one for goodness sake. Even the hardest BREXIT supporters can't surely buy into that trash!? 

 

In times of possible war and potential worldwide financial crashes. Together is better. Freedom of movement is better and cheaper taxes is better. Not mentioning keeping trade deals, food suppliers and retaining our industrial presence. BREXIT being a word has already lost us several manufacturing contracts, causing closures, and therefore redundancies. 

 

Look at it this way. How does the EU effect you right now? Personally maybe not much, but as a country we heavily benefit for various reasons 

 

Will we have a better way of living after we leave? No. In fact life will be a lot harder. 

 

So what do you personally gain from BREXIT? Nothing? So why have a harder life? 

 

 

Why does a union with no ambitions of its own nation state need an anthem, a flag, a president, an army, or a parliament with complete control over the laws, trade and borders of its members?

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

You can close and your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and pretend its not the case but you're being delusional I'm afraid.  

[BlueSi13]

10 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

This argument is irritating. There was no majority. A referendum, no matter what is said on the propoganda released, is only a poll of opinion. It is not a form of elective vote therefore there is no lawful obligation to follow it through. 

 

If it were an elective vote. The split wouldn't have been clear enough to call a majority and the vote would have been thrown out anyway. 

 

Remainers are complaining because we are taking the hard evidence and facts laid out by advisors from several different areas of discipline who are all claiming BREXIT to be poor for their area. Banks, manufacturers, trade, fuel etc. We are considering the personal effects BREXIT will have on our families and our work places. 

 

I don't care about this percentage of voters said this, or that 75 percent of mps want this. I don't care about whether or not we are sovereign, I have no care for blue passports and have no problem with our current immigration policies.

 

What I do care about is making life as easy as possible for me, my family and future generations. I can tell you now, BREXIT will make things a darn site harder than it already is! Not better! 

What?

 

If 2016 were a leave/remain General Election, leave would have won with an overwhelming majority.

 

 

Check out the number at the bottom to see where the problem is though.  406 constituencies voted leave but are only represented by 160 MPs.  Whereas 242 constituencies voted remain but are represented by 486 MPs.  You think that's representative?  

Edited 17 September 2019 by BlueSi13

[BlueSi13]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

The problem with that tweet is that it appears to make out that if we leave the Single Market we will lose £1.9 billion a week.  However for that to happen trade between the UK and EU would have to drop to 0.  Considering the EU has a significant trade surplus with us (+64 billion) such a scenario would be equally as disastrous for them.

 

However we both know that isn't going to happen.  The no-deal forecast models themselves make no such prediction, indeed they suggest that leaving the Single Market and Customs Union will cost us £1 billion a YEAR which equates to 0.055% pa reduction in growth.  Certainly not £1.6 billion a WEEK.

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168964684764131328.html

 

Conclusion = a sensible and pragmatic free trade deal that suits both sides interests.

Edited 17 September 2019 by BlueSi13

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

You think that's representative?  

Funny you talk about representation when someone like Boris is in charge. The man who was given the role as Prime Minister when it was only his fellow MPs who could vote him in... 

 

You reckon he represents what people want? Reckon he represents as the best option to lead this country? Tell me please what he has, as such an incredible person, achieved so far as Prime Minister? 

 

What does he represent? Who does he represent? 

 

[BlueSi13]

Just now, StanSP said:

Funny you talk about representation when someone like Boris is in charge. The man who was given the role as Prime Minister when it was only his fellow MPs who could vote him in... 

 

You reckon he represents what people want? Reckon he represents as the best option to lead this country? Tell me please what he has, as such an incredible person, achieved so far as Prime Minister? 

 

What does he represent? Who does he represent? 

 

Let's find out by calling a General Elec...oh yeah.

[Ali Begbie]

17 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

What?

 

If 2016 were a leave/remain General Election, leave would have won with an overwhelming majority.

 

 

Check out the number at the bottom to see where the problem is though.  406 constituencies voted leave but are only represented by 160 MPs.  Whereas 242 constituencies voted remain but are represented by 486 MPs.  You think that's representative?  

It’s a strong case, and I don’t think anyone would dispute that we voted to leave the EU. Remainers need to accept this.

 

But equally, Leavers need to acknowledge two things:

• There was only one word on the ballot paper: Leave. We didn’t vote to leave without a deal, and we didn’t vote to leave within any defined timeframe. None of those things was voted upon. No-one owns Brexit and no-one has the right to say that we voted to leave in October or that we voted to leave the Customs Union or that we voted for a hard border in Ireland.  All of those things are negotiations which, practically, cannot continually be put to the people to decide. It’s up to Parliament.
• People can change their minds. The latest YouGov polling indicates that 9% of those who voted Leave now want to Remain.

Since you’re quite rightly resting your case on Democracy can I ask you a question:

 

If the Lib Dems win the next election with a majority, then does that mean you’d accept that the will of the people 2016 is superceded by the will of the people 2019 and that Brexit should be cancelled?

Edited 17 September 2019 by Ali Begbie

[Facecloth]

18 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

What?

 

If 2016 were a leave/remain General Election, leave would have won with an overwhelming majority.

 

 

Check out the number at the bottom to see where the problem is though.  406 constituencies voted leave but are only represented by 160 MPs.  Whereas 242 constituencies voted remain but are represented by 486 MPs.  You think that's representative?  

Wasn't a GE though was it, it was an advisory referendum, so it's a mute point.

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Let's find out by calling a General Elec...oh yeah.

Is that the only question you'll answer

 

[BlueSi13]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Wasn't a GE though was it, it was an advisory referendum, so it's a mute point.

To you it is because the side you voted for lost.  

 

As I asked yesterday, if roles were reversed, we'd voted remain but the majority of MPs backed Brexit and decided to take us out anyway as it was only an "advisory referendum", you'd have no problems with that?

[BlueSi13]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Is that the only question you'll answer

 

Of course, all of those questions you raised regarding whether he is the right man to lead the country and whether he is who the people want would be answered in a General Election.  

 

If he was such an embarrassment and a calamity, surely he'd be bombed out of Downing Street so fast he'd break the sound barrier right?  Why would the opposition duck it? 

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

To you it is because the side you voted for lost.  

 

As I asked yesterday, if roles were reversed, we'd voted remain but the majority of MPs backed Brexit and decided to take us out anyway as it was only an "advisory referendum", you'd have no problems with that?

No not just to me, by the actual laws of the land as I proved yesterday 

 

And I guess I'd remain had won and the mps tried to leave I'd probably just moan and say get over it you lost, like you lot do 

Edited 17 September 2019 by Facecloth

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Of course, all of those questions you raised regarding whether he is the right man to lead the country and whether he is who the people want would be answered in a General Election.  

 

If he was such an embarrassment and a calamity, surely he'd be bombed out of Downing Street so fast he'd break the sound barrier right?  Why would the opposition duck it? 

 

This may have been true years ago, but we live in a time where the President of the US went in a sulk and cancelled a State visit because Denmark refused to consider selling Greenland, yet he'll likely be odds on favourite in the next Presidential Election.

 

Cummings is the head advisor admitted, no, bragged about using psyops tactics on social media in the referendum.

I honestly don't care if you want to Leave or Remain because I've lost hope in the process but to argue that Boris, who was largely portrayed as a buffoon and 'lovable moron' by even The Sun and Daily Mail a decade ago, isn't an extremely awful reflection on both the Conservative Party and Britain as a whole as Prime Minister, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

He must be one of the first politicians to run a campaign by totally removing himself from the public eye  

 

The reason he backtracked on his initial declaration to then back a General Election is because he can run it not on himself as Prime Minister but on the back of anger of the whole totally fvcked process and target it at the 'undesirable' ( see: not loyal to his very narrow definition of a Conservative MP) elements of Parliament. Both he & Cummings realise a campaign ran as Boris Johnson rather than Hard Brexit would be a disaster which is why he's so keen on getting through. 

 

Cummings is a divisive little cretin and I hope once this is all done whatever the outcome people come to understand the damage he's done to this country. He's damaged and polarised British society more than the likes of shitheads like Anjem Chouhary could ever dream of.

[FerrisBueller]

49 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

To you it is because the side you voted for lost.  

 

As I asked yesterday, if roles were reversed, we'd voted remain but the majority of MPs backed Brexit and decided to take us out anyway as it was only an "advisory referendum", you'd have no problems with that?

Unfortunately that's all it comes down to. We won, you lost, Regardless of consequences. If Leave won in a referendum that was legally run, in a scenario where the public were given genuine evidence based information to form a decision, I'd accept it, I wouldn't be happy with it and I would continually bang on about what a fundamentally bad idea it was, but I would accept it.

That's not the case though, hence why the country is split in half.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

He might have been, but still in there, same as what I posted, there is no legal obligation to leave. Even though leave won and we triggered article 50, we don't have to to legally leave. The sentence on the leaflet is not a legally binding contract. Whether we have to morally is another discission. 

 

Now people might cite the party manifestos at the last election. Yes they did pledge to leave, but again based on a non legally binding promise made by a previous government prior to an advosory referendum. And just because something is in a manifesto doesn't mean it will happen, thats how our parliament works. If it can't be voted through it doesn't become law.

 

So like I say morally we might have to leave, but I'm just stating fact, there is no legal obligation to do so.

So do you believe morally we have duty to implement the result of referendum?

[Facecloth]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So do you believe morally we have duty to implement the result of referendum?

I think morally Cameron did, as it was his government's promise. I think morally we have to do what's best for the country. That's what we elects mps to do. If they don't see brexit being in the countrys best interests then morally they shouldn't allow it.

Edited 17 September 2019 by Facecloth

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Wasn't a GE though was it, it was an advisory referendum, so it's a mute point.

I'm saying nothing....

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I think morally Cameron did, as it was his government's promise. I think morally we have to do what's best for the country. That's what we elects mps to do. If they don't see brexit being in the countries best interests then morally they shouldn't allow it.

 

Fair enough, I respect your honest opinion although I don’t think all of that’s entirely true, we elect MPs based on manifesto promises, and expect them to deliver on them. If the MPs are swaying from those promises, they should have the guts to put it back to the people, via a second referendum or a GE imo.