With all the failures one has to wonder why she actually wants to remain as PM, she is making DC look very intelligent, perhaps she should follow in his footsteps.
If the politicians do not want to take up the responsibility then her mandate to them should be back my plan or do it yourself, in such an event she could then present Norway model (if they are willing to have the UK back) or have another referendum on the issue, how they would get that pushed through will be interesting, but as the saying goes, where there is a will.....it might be the lowest voter turn out every in history of UK votes, folks at this point are fed up with politicians.

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2016 referendum programme. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be British, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the European Union.

#brexbrilliant #Brexcellent

Arion640 wrote:

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2016 referendum programme. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be British, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the European Union.

#brexbrilliant #Brexcellent

That'll probably come as a shock to 48% of the "whole" country.

#alternativefacts #livinginthepast

Arion640 wrote:

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2016 referendum programme. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be British, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the European Union.

#brexbrilliant #Brexcellent

I see you've reached the stage of denial where your last resort is shutting out the real world completely and with shaking hands clinging to memories of a more hopeful past before it all went to hell when reality came crashing down on all those fraudulent claims and promises.

The problem is that at some point your stash of hard liquor will run out and you'll have to confront the real world again. And as a consequence of your decision that real world is increasingly showing signs of the consequences you had been warned about but inebriated by propaganda you refused to acknowledge. Too late now – those consequences aren't hypothetical any more, they're turning real.

Arion640 wrote:

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2016 referendum programme. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be British, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the European Union.

#brexbrilliant #Brexcellent

Absolutely historic. One of the finest hours in British history and with so many positive side effects, like no longer having to deal with so many Spaniards during the holidays in Spain.

https://www.costa-news.com/latest-news/ ... rds-there/

Arion640 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Our economy is clearly strong and is beginning to work for the people of Britain.

All this whilst being a member of the European Union

And where is this mass exodus of companies leaving? It would be happening by now....

Why are companies making contingency plans by renting office space in the EU if they aren't planning to relocate should this become necessary? Moreover, it's not relocating the entire company. Usually it's relocating everything which is related to EU business or regulation (for example Barclays).

Arion640 wrote:

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2016 referendum programme. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be British, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the European Union.

#brexbrilliant #Brexcellent

Excellent news, In 50 years time Brexit will have some benefits.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Claims We Might Not See Benefits Of Brexit For 50 Years

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 45/video/1

This is a Brexiteer whom is willingly arguing for Brexit which might have a benefit a lifetime away. They might have made that assessment before the vote, some voters might have wanted to know this beforehand.

Arion640 wrote:

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2016 referendum programme. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be British, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the European Union.

#brexbrilliant #Brexcellent

Bit much to sate the whole country uniting considering the vote was close and Brexti was, and continiues to be, a great dividing topic in the UK

Look at the last elections, 75-80% of the votes went to parties that wanted to go ahead with the Brexit. Britain stands united.

seahawk wrote:

Look at the last elections, 75-80% of the votes went to parties that wanted to go ahead with the Brexit. Britain stands united.

So that about half of the population aren't represented in parliament doesn't matter?

As more than 50% did vote in the last elections, one must assume that the support for the Brexit has grown, as parties wanting to do the Brexit got a vast majority of votes.

Arion640 wrote:

I’m continuing to re-watch the 2017 Hydrogen bomb test. Fantastic. Makes me feel proud to be North Korean, the whole country uniting to fight back and reject the imperialist yankees.

#nuclearbrilliant #nukecellent

I was certain I had seen that rhetoric somewhere before, so I fixed it for you

seahawk wrote:

As more than 50% did vote in the last elections, one must assume that the support for the Brexit has grown, as parties wanting to do the Brexit got a vast majority of votes.

100% pure fallacy.

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

As more than 50% did vote in the last elections, one must assume that the support for the Brexit has grown, as parties wanting to do the Brexit got a vast majority of votes.

100% pure fallacy.

100% pure fact.

Arion640 wrote:

100% pure fact.

as usual disproved by evidence



But if you want more proof, then lets have a peoples vote / final say referendum!

(most people incidentally now want this as well!!)

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

100% pure fact.

as usual disproved by evidence



But if you want more proof, then lets have a peoples vote / final say referendum!

(most people incidentally now want this as well!!)

Sure, then i hope you’d agree with me to call for a best of 3?

Just want a final say based upon known facts and consequences, rather than the lies and inaccuracies of 2016.

If people then accept Brexit based on facts then fine. To date that has not been possible.

Arion640 wrote:

Sure, then i hope you’d agree with me to call for a best of 3?

Well one of your Brexiteers-in-chief, one Mr Farage, loudly called for a second vote if the result was a close one.

That was before leave won, of course. Suddenly a second vote was forgotten.

Richard28 wrote:

Just want a final say based upon known facts and consequences, rather than the lies and inaccuracies of 2016.

If people then accept Brexit based on facts then fine. To date that has not been possible.

To clarify, are you talking about two votes here, one to approve whatever deal is made and another referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU?
I ask because they are separate issues, Article 50 triggered Brexit, the negotiations are about the form of Brexit, as per your post based on lies and inaccuracies, the only way to correct that is with a second referendum or parliament undoing the government commitment to respect the results of the vote.
What the parliament has now is a vote on whatever deal is agreed or not agreed, that in itself does not delay Article 50 nor reverse the government commitment, only another public vote would tell whether the citizens also support an about face.
Best two out of three would only be eliminated if the margin of victory is so great as to render a third vote meaningless.

par13del wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Just want a final say based upon known facts and consequences, rather than the lies and inaccuracies of 2016.

If people then accept Brexit based on facts then fine. To date that has not been possible.

To clarify, are you talking about two votes here, one to approve whatever deal is made and another referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU?
I ask because they are separate issues, Article 50 triggered Brexit, the negotiations are about the form of Brexit, as per your post based on lies and inaccuracies, the only way to correct that is with a second referendum or parliament undoing the government commitment to respect the results of the vote.
What the parliament has now is a vote on whatever deal is agreed or not agreed, that in itself does not delay Article 50 nor reverse the government commitment, only another public vote would tell whether the citizens also support an about face.
Best two out of three would only be eliminated if the margin of victory is so great as to render a third vote meaningless.

Those are indeed separate issue's. I think a realistic scenario would be: accept the outcome of the negotiations or the alternative: the Madagascar scenario: WTO rules only.

The issue of Brexit seems to be over, so Brittian will exit the EU, one way or another. Perhaps there could be a lobby to re-enter the EU at one point, say in five years time or so. Not now.

Dutchy wrote:

the Madagascar scenario: WTO rules only. .

Madagascar is party to the following trade Agreements:

Indian Ocean Commission (COI)
Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA)
Cotonou Agreement
Southern African Development Community (SADC)
Interim Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union.

The only country only trading on pure WTO rules is Mauritania, So.. Mauritania scenario? As a developing country they have tariff free exports into plenty of places, the EU included.

The UK has nothing. It is the UK scenario.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

Those are indeed separate issue's. I think a realistic scenario would be: accept the outcome of the negotiations or the alternative: the Madagascar scenario: WTO rules only.

That is of course assuming that there is an outcome to the negotiations that is acceptable to the EU (current chequers proposal is not) and also acceptable to the UK parliament.

If there is no deal negotiated then the final say/peoples vote would be a straight a) accept the "No Deal"/WTO scenario or b) decide that is not good enough and stay in the EU.

Should there be a deal negotiated then a three way ballot could be an answer [i.e. a) Accept the Deal, b) No Deal, c) Remain] and there are various ways this could happen, the most suitable possibly being the Modified Borda Count method.

Dutchy wrote:

The issue of Brexit seems to be over, so Brittian will exit the EU, one way or another. Perhaps there could be a lobby to re-enter the EU at one point, say in five years time or so. Not now.

It aint over until its over!

And yes, just as there have been political parties to Leave, there would be political parties going forward who will have it as policy to rejoin. If Jacob Rees-Mogg's 50 year prediction to get benefits on leaving is even broadly accurate then rejoining is just a matter of time.

Dutchy wrote:

The issue of Brexit seems to be over, so Brittian will exit the EU, one way or another.

It's been over since the Government agreed to implement the result of the referendum. The "only" issue has been what type of Brexit was voted for, because that's something on which everybody has a different view.

Dutchy wrote:

Perhaps there could be a lobby to re-enter the EU at one point, say in five years time or so. Not now.

I think it will take much longer than that, but a lot less than JRM's 50 years. The real irony being, we'd have to rejoin as a normal member, losing the privileges we currently have. Who knows, maybe it would make us better Europeans? Not much hope for me personally, but maybe for my grandchildren.

Richard28 wrote:

If there is no deal negotiated then the final say/peoples vote would be a straight a) accept the "No Deal"/WTO scenario or b) decide that is not good enough and stay in the EU.

To get to that option another referendum would have to be held, at present, the peoples representatives are only voting on whether the deal that the government proposes is acceptable to the parliament. So far it looks as if they are still going forward with the Chequers proposal even though the EU has already said NYET.

That means hard Brexit. Which is the best solution any way.

scbriml wrote:

....maybe it would make us better Europeans?

If it does that history will judge the vote kindly and the interim mess as a blip on the radar.

par13del wrote:

To get to that option another referendum would have to be held

Yes, which is exactly what The Peoples Vote campaign is asking for.

par13del wrote:

at present, the peoples representatives are only voting on whether the deal that the government proposes is acceptable to the parliament. So far it looks as if they are still going forward with the Chequers proposal even though the EU has already said NYET.

With regard to chequers, there will need to be many more concessions before it is acceptable to the EU, and by that time it may not be acceptable to the Brextremist establishment.

The way I see it we are then in a position of either:

1) a unity cross bench government, to put in place the agreement (Hard Brexit would appear to not have a parliamentary majority)
2) a vote of no confidence in TM and possible new leader of the Tories/PM, followed by Hard Brexit, at which point parliament could still deny the course of action being pursued by any new Prime Minister, so may not in reality progress matters further in the short term.
3) The government concedes it has been unable to get a deal and puts it to the people to decide if they want to go ahead or not, i.e. referendum on No Deal or Remain.... or a new general election.
4) one of the above happens, with an extension of Article 50 (assuming acceptable to the EU) to give more time for something different to happen.

I find it hard to see how a general election could solve this however, as both parties remain split and those tensions will doubtless remain going forward as they have for decades.

A new referendum is a way through this. A vote on the final deal (or no deal) would give a full and proper mandate going forward, and give much less wiggle room for the losing side.

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Sure, then i hope you’d agree with me to call for a best of 3?

Well one of your Brexiteers-in-chief, one Mr Farage, loudly called for a second vote if the result was a close one.

That was before leave won, of course. Suddenly a second vote was forgotten.

Sure. So one famous brexiteer not even connected to the official campaign says something and then you instantly apply it that it is the opinion of every brexiteer in the country.

But can we still have a third referendum? If you want a second one, a third one should be perfectly ok with you.

Richard28 wrote:

I find it hard to see how a general election could solve this however, as both parties remain split and those tensions will doubtless remain going forward as they have for decades.

If a new election is called as a result of a No Brexit Deal, the issue will be resolved easily. If as you believe the majority of the UK now wants to remain in the EU, the party which says that is their position should win easily. The snap election was called not on Brexit but to give a stronger majority in parliament, as such all parties ultimately had to announce that they would uphold the results of the referendum, hence Labour despite having a Euro-sceptic leader had an official policy to support Brexit, their campaign became free tuition and other free stuff which appealed to the young.

The issue is settled the UK will leave and will never come back. The only thing left to do is leave the pointless talks with the EU and end the membership as quickly as possible, because at the moment British money is going to the EU every day, Money that would be needed to improve the NHS among other things.

par13del wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

I find it hard to see how a general election could solve this however, as both parties remain split and those tensions will doubtless remain going forward as they have for decades.

If a new election is called as a result of a No Brexit Deal, the issue will be resolved easily. If as you believe the majority of the UK now wants to remain in the EU, the party which says that is their position should win easily. .

a remain party/coalition winning does however not mean that the EU agrees with them.

Whatever any current or new UK government wants, i would think that the EU would not care what their desired end-result is, but care very much for any kind of coherent negotiation position (i.e. proposal in line with EU treaties, WTO rules and such, so the EU *can* in principle agree to them), and good faith negotiations geared towards making process, even if an orderly hard Brexit is the goal.. So no back-paddling due to pressure at home and such.

In that case rescinding art. 50, extending the negotiation period or a sensible 10 year transition agreement could be made in rather short order i think, but a government driven by threat of losing a confidence vote won´t fly, regardless of the end result that government desires.

best regards
Thomas

Meanwhile, the British Government still does not seem to understand the EU is a rules based organisation which legally can not step out of its way much to make the UK that utopian 'unique' offer far better than anything it has in place for a third party, and it was recently caught red handed bugging EC meetings where it tried to gather secret information on any possible internal (and much better) ideas for alternative proposals from the EC!

The most interesting element of this secret mission is that MI6 could only report back to the UK that indeed the EC thinks very hard about all sort of alternative models apart from the already famous slide with cascading options going from the Norway option to the WTO option which will stand the legal test indeed (contrary to the Chequers plan from TM), but that none of it will come even close to what TM dreams is possible as the EU is not prepared to bend -let alone break- any of its own rules to accomodate any future UK deal. Surprise, surprise, isnt it

So, thanks to MI6 we know the EU has reportedly also been looking if there's any inspiration to be drawn from the different micro-nations surrounding it and which all have deals with the EU in place. Tells us something about the future cloud of Britain in Europe and the world already, but okay... let's discuss it furrher, since it's where the idea of the 'Jersey option' which was rumoured in Britain to be a 'new' idea from Brussels was allegedly obtained from: internally, the EU has simply elaborated its famous slide to also include the intermediate levels of cooperation between those taken by say Norway and Switzerland for instance, yet currently only taken by micronations!
The best of these (e.g. the Jersey option) would mean SM access is 'split up' and only goods are automatically accomodated (hooray, financials are free to divert on a case to case basis, provided an overal number required still fall inline with the SM and the rules governing those who do divert are deemed acceptable to the EU), yet it does require full CU membership (so byebye any British trade deals), full ECJ oversight, full participation in the CFP/CAP and full financial contributions as if one would be a full SM member. On top of that FOM is maintained too, but capped by mechanisms of housing and social security limitations for new arrivals.
TM's Chequers proposal however is stopping right after the first line, and thus automatically discarted by the EU.... so good there's MI6, right?

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Sure, then i hope you’d agree with me to call for a best of 3?

Well one of your Brexiteers-in-chief, one Mr Farage, loudly called for a second vote if the result was a close one.

That was before leave won, of course. Suddenly a second vote was forgotten.

Sure. So one famous brexiteer not even connected to the official campaign says something and then you instantly apply it that it is the opinion of every brexiteer in the country.

But can we still have a third referendum? If you want a second one, a third one should be perfectly ok with you.

My statement started with "One of...." how do you read that as me saying, or even implying it was the opinion of every brexiteer?

I'm pretty sure you won't find a single post of mine calling for a second referendum. You might find me agreeing with the idea of a vote on the Brexit "deal", but that's about it.

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Well one of your Brexiteers-in-chief, one Mr Farage, loudly called for a second vote if the result was a close one.

That was before leave won, of course. Suddenly a second vote was forgotten.

Sure. So one famous brexiteer not even connected to the official campaign says something and then you instantly apply it that it is the opinion of every brexiteer in the country.

But can we still have a third referendum? If you want a second one, a third one should be perfectly ok with you.

My statement started with "One of...." how do you read that as me saying, or even implying it was the opinion of every brexiteer?

I'm pretty sure you won't find a single post of mine calling for a second referendum. You might find me agreeing with the idea of a vote on the Brexit "deal", but that's about it.

But would you be against the idea of a third referendum?

Arion640 wrote:

But would you be against the idea of a third referendum?

Would you be against the idea of a fourth referendum? How far do you want to go?

Had not heard of that Jersey option before. It would be hard to sell to the european people though, considering Jersey is a fiscal paradise.

[threeid][/threeid]

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

But would you be against the idea of a third referendum?

Would you be against the idea of a fourth referendum? How far do you want to go?

Exactly the problem and why the first referendum must stand.

Arion640 wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

But would you be against the idea of a third referendum?

Would you be against the idea of a fourth referendum? How far do you want to go?

Exactly the problem and why the first referendum must stand.

If you insist, then I wholeheartedly agree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... ndum,_1975

What is amazing about both referendums is that neither was legally binding, but the detractors of both results took the same side, that there was no need to enforce the results.

"The referendum result was not legally binding; however, it was widely accepted that the vote would be the final say on the matter and would be politically binding on all future Westminster Parliaments."

seahawk wrote:

Money that would be needed to improve the NHS among other things.

NHS would save over £5billion a year by simply getting their shit in one sock. Purchasing for instance, some trusts pay 10 times+ what others pay for the same items. eg bog roll, one trust pays £2, another forks out £20 for the same dam pack. Multiple that by the scale of the NHS and factor tens of thousands of other items.
The NHS has some serious buying power, they need to make better use of it.

The NHS won't get the extra £350 million per week as advertised on the rope-a-dope leave bus. Leave u-turned on that one within minutes of the result.

Arion640 wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

But would you be against the idea of a third referendum?

Would you be against the idea of a fourth referendum? How far do you want to go?

Exactly the problem and why the first referendum must stand.

What's the "problem"?

Any real democracy would allow people to change their minds however often they want.

So does a "no-deal" Brexit mean all the EU footballers will have to go back home and apply for work visas?

Will make 29 March 2019 very interesting.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

scbriml wrote:

Would you be against the idea of a fourth referendum? How far do you want to go?

Exactly the problem and why the first referendum must stand.

What's the "problem"?

Any real democracy would allow people to change their minds however often they want.

Brilliant. Lets keep going and going.

ElPistolero wrote:

So does a "no-deal" Brexit mean all the EU footballers will have to go back home and apply for work visas?

Will make 29 March 2019 very interesting.

Hmmm....if there are no predominantly Labour or Tory teams, sports may finally be the catalyst to get both sides united to ensure that they can watch some football, imagine if an entire weekend of games with "foreigners" on the teams are cancelled.

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

scbriml wrote:

Would you be against the idea of a fourth referendum? How far do you want to go?

Exactly the problem and why the first referendum must stand.

If you insist, then I wholeheartedly agree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... ndum,_1975

So do i, i’d of voted to remain if the EU in 1975 was the EU in 2016.

Sadly it’s becoming a superstate.

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The issue of Brexit seems to be over, so Brittian will exit the EU, one way or another.

It's been over since the Government agreed to implement the result of the referendum. The "only" issue has been what type of Brexit was voted for, because that's something on which everybody has a different view.

Dutchy wrote:

Perhaps there could be a lobby to re-enter the EU at one point, say in five years time or so. Not now.

I think it will take much longer than that, but a lot less than JRM's 50 years. The real irony being, we'd have to rejoin as a normal member, losing the privileges we currently have. Who knows, maybe it would make us better Europeans? Not much hope for me personally, but maybe for my grandchildren.

I can’t see the British people ever accepting the Euro.

Plus being in the Schengen area, would cause unease.

Arion640 wrote:

So do i, i’d of voted to remain if the EU in 1975 was the EU in 2016.

Sadly it’s becoming a superstate.

In that case why do you want to leave the single market and have a hard Brexit?

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

So do i, i’d of voted to remain if the EU in 1975 was the EU in 2016.

Sadly it’s becoming a superstate.

In that case why do you want to leave the single market and have a hard Brexit?

... or vote remain anyways, as the UK already got its exemption from further political integration.....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

So do i, i’d of voted to remain if the EU in 1975 was the EU in 2016.

Sadly it’s becoming a superstate.

In that case why do you want to leave the single market and have a hard Brexit?

... or vote remain anyways, as the UK already got its exemption from further political integration.....

best regards
Thomas

But no exemption of free movement of people.

Arion640 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

In that case why do you want to leave the single market and have a hard Brexit?

... or vote remain anyways, as the UK already got its exemption from further political integration.....

best regards
Thomas

But no exemption of free movement of people.

We have that since the treaties of Paris and Rome and it has been an EU directive since 1968 (1968/360/EEC to be precise).

You voted overwhelmingly yes to that. The vote must stand.

best regards
Thomas