|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 29, 2019 14:47:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jul 29, 2019 14:56:43 GMT
Tactic is so obvious isnt it. Bluff hard on a no deal possibility to try and force EU in to renegotiating which is what they lied about being possible to begin with. Tell the general public they voted for no deal to smoothover the fact that they obviously didnt and give them face to hold on to now the facts are clear and therefore a fictional mandate. Either get a renegotiation of some description and sell hard that this is what the public wanted (what leaver will admit to otherwise). Or Get no renegotiation and blame the EU. Then use Steve Bannon to bullshit the facebook masses to vote Boris because hes your mate and hes trying to give you what you always really wanted and get a mandate. Its laughable how easily persuaded the British are. Has the last three years totally passed you by? Maybe! What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jul 29, 2019 14:57:38 GMT
100 million pounds on leaflets on how to prepare for a no deal scenario. One can only imagine it will contain things such as 'buy a new yacht' and 'dont worry about your health, the 350 million a week is in the post' rather than any information about how to eat your dog. 100 million? Methinks you have got that figure wrong. No, I'm correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 15:03:48 GMT
Including TV ads, it is up to £100m. Hang on. It was 9 million for Cameron to put a leaflet through every letterbox. Has inflation been quietly running rampant for the last three years? Damien Collins (Hint)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 15:04:20 GMT
100 million? Methinks you have got that figure wrong. No, I'm correct. You are.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 29, 2019 15:24:09 GMT
What legal document is the Backstop in? The withdrawal agreement (if it were signed) What about the backstop is anymore undemocratic then what else is in it, or the BS being peddled by Boris and co Unacceptable maybe, but what about it is undemocratic? 'We' voted leave democratically, We voted in elected representatives democratically to get us out. Our democratically elected representatives came up with the WA. What is undemocratic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 15:57:56 GMT
The withdrawal agreement (if it were signed) What about the backstop is anymore undemocratic then what else is in it, or the BS being peddled by Boris and co Unacceptable maybe, but what about it is undemocratic? 'We' voted leave democratically, We voted in elected representatives democratically to get us out. Our democratically elected representatives came up with the WA. What is undemocratic? Because the Backstop, if implemented, means that the UK may never leave, which makes it undemocratic as the people voted to leave the EU.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 29, 2019 17:04:13 GMT
Unacceptable maybe, but what about it is undemocratic? 'We' voted leave democratically, We voted in elected representatives democratically to get us out. Our democratically elected representatives came up with the WA. What is undemocratic? Because the Backstop, if implemented, means that the UK may never leave, which makes it undemocratic as the people voted to leave the EU. The WA was an attempt at compromise, extreme views on both sides prevented it passing. The democratic aspect would have been met by Parliament voting for it.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jul 29, 2019 17:18:48 GMT
Because the Backstop, if implemented, means that the UK may never leave, which makes it undemocratic as the people voted to leave the EU. The WA was an attempt at compromise, extreme views on both sides prevented it passing. The democratic aspect would have been met by Parliament voting for it. the democratic aspect was met by parliament voting ON it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 17:28:57 GMT
The WA is a terrible Treaty.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 29, 2019 17:37:46 GMT
The WA is a terrible Treaty. That is irrelevant, Parliament voted and had it passed, it would be democratically enacted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 19:10:04 GMT
The WA is a terrible Treaty. That is irrelevant, Parliament voted and had it passed, it would be democratically enacted. Actually Stuart, your comment is irrelevant as it was never passed.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 29, 2019 19:24:11 GMT
That is irrelevant, Parliament voted and had it passed, it would be democratically enacted. Actually Stuart, your comment is irrelevant as it was never passed. The topic was about whether the WA was democratic. Leaving aside personal views on its contents, are you saying it would have had no legitimacy if it was passed by a sovereign Parliament?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 7:44:53 GMT
Actually Stuart, your comment is irrelevant as it was never passed. The topic was about whether the WA was democratic. Leaving aside personal views on its contents, are you saying it would have had no legitimacy if it was passed by a sovereign Parliament? What's even more funny is that leavers were spitting rivets when Gina Miller went to the High Court to force a meaningful vote in Parliament on any deal struck by a government. Without that they, the Government under May, would have pushed through what they liked. Which is exactly what the Johnson administration will do, given the opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 18:58:09 GMT
Actually Stuart, your comment is irrelevant as it was never passed. The topic was about whether the WA was democratic. Leaving aside personal views on its contents, are you saying it would have had no legitimacy if it was passed by a sovereign Parliament? The WA is undemocratic in that if ratified it means the UK does not really leave the EU, when the democratic decision was to leave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 19:08:13 GMT
The topic was about whether the WA was democratic. Leaving aside personal views on its contents, are you saying it would have had no legitimacy if it was passed by a sovereign Parliament? What's even more funny is that leavers were spitting rivets when Gina Miller went to the High Court to force a meaningful vote in Parliament on any deal struck by a government. Without that they, the Government under May, would have pushed through what they liked. Which is exactly what the Johnson administration will do, given the opportunity. Ah, Gina Miller and unintended consequences. You've just got to laugh at that one. A Remainer Parliament didn't have the intellect to accept May's Withdrawal Treaty, which would have given Remainers the platform to re-join the EU. Instead, Parliament played infantile party politics. Johnson is not 'pushing through' anything. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to implement Article 50. It is now the law. In fact, it is the will of Parliament. If Miller had done nothing, May's withdrawal treaty would have been enabled, the UK would still be tied to the EU, and the remainers would be looking to re-join the EU within five years. Ha, ha, unintended consequences.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 30, 2019 19:11:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 19:16:39 GMT
You've got it wrong. It is empty because she expects to walk away with their offer. We're offering nothing! Proper negotiations. Offer nothing to start and make them drag concessions out of you. Her dress needs a damn good ironing though. Standards lass, standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 20:37:09 GMT
What's even more funny is that leavers were spitting rivets when Gina Miller went to the High Court to force a meaningful vote in Parliament on any deal struck by a government. Without that they, the Government under May, would have pushed through what they liked. Which is exactly what the Johnson administration will do, given the opportunity. Ah, Gina Miller and unintended consequences. You've just got to laugh at that one. A Remainer Parliament didn't have the intellect to accept May's Withdrawal Treaty, which would have given Remainers the platform to re-join the EU. Instead, Parliament played infantile party politics. Johnson is not 'pushing through' anything. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to implement Article 50. It is now the law. In fact, it is the will of Parliament. If Miller had done nothing, May's withdrawal treaty would have been enabled, the UK would still be tied to the EU, and the remainers would be looking to re-join the EU within five years. Ha, ha, unintended consequences. Funny, how leavers demanded the sovereignty of Parliament, and, when remainers like us, invoke it leavers like you decry it. It seems to me, by your response, it is us that respects that sovereignty, not you. Your cynisism speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 30, 2019 22:52:34 GMT
The topic was about whether the WA was democratic. Leaving aside personal views on its contents, are you saying it would have had no legitimacy if it was passed by a sovereign Parliament? The WA is undemocratic in that if ratified it means the UK does not really leave the EU, when the democratic decision was to leave. Undemocratic in that it was negotiated by an elected government and voted on by elected representatives? I don't particularly like the contents either and I would say if it was really continuity Remain, then I would. As we both don't like it, maybe it is an attempt at a compromise. Just because you (or I) don't think it goes far enough one way or another, doesn't make it undemocratic.
|
|