|
|
Post by Pedropotter on Nov 26, 2018 18:27:15 GMT
It really is astonishing when you just look at the comments from the QC. There was always going to be a cost to any Brexit, but it seems that May has managed to get the biggest cost with the smallest, if any benefit. I just don’t get what’s going on here, it just doesn’t make sense and I can only come to the conclusion it has all been carefully crafted to ensure there isn’t a Brexit at all. We have a winner! |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 26, 2018 18:30:45 GMT
Yet you said 'none' So you were wrong You think trading on WTO rules is a bespoke trade deal that we should be aspiring to? 'Soon we will have trade deals with none of the world' That's word for word what you originally posted. You are wrong. WTO terms are the least we can expect when trading with anyone and better terms WILL be sorted bi-laterally and unilaterally with many countries as soon as we're allowed to (and I suspect you know this) Nobody since this thread was started, I don't think, has said that what we currently get a particularly bad deal at the moment within the EU. Let's not forget though, the EU is no longer simply a trading organisation. If it wasn't for everything that HAS to come with it then chances are there would never have been the word 'Brexit' in our vocabulary. What's wrong with simple co-operation without integration? |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2018 18:49:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 18:51:39 GMT
So do you think the next general election should be a restricted vote between Tory or UKIP only because the others lost last time (I’ve included UKIP as half the Tories are UKIPPERS)? What is more democratic than being able to vote and have the power to change your mind from last time? A general election is a completely different scenario. The referendum was a choice between remain or leave - leave won, and the result should be honoured. If there were to be another referendum then that choice should be between the method of leaving I.e. May's Deal or No Deal. Why is an election any different? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 18:53:23 GMT
Bravo If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote LEAVE That’s the problem remain voters just do not understand that many didn’t vote leave for economic or social issues They voted leave purely on the subject of sovereignty Yes, remain voters voted for more sovereignty, leave voters for less. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 18:57:20 GMT
You think trading on WTO rules is a bespoke trade deal that we should be aspiring to? 'Soon we will have trade deals with none of the world' That's word for word what you originally posted. You are wrong. WTO terms are the least we can expect when trading with anyone and better terms WILL be sorted bi-laterally and unilaterally with many countries as soon as we're allowed to (and I suspect you know this) Nobody since this thread was started, I don't think, has said that what we currently get a particularly bad deal at the moment within the EU. Let's not forget though, the EU is no longer simply a trading organisation. If it wasn't for everything that HAS to come with it then chances are there would never have been the word 'Brexit' in our vocabulary. What's wrong with simple co-operation without integration? Under WTO rules is how nations trade when there is no bespoke trade deal. Do you understand that? I think you don’t quite understand the difference between a bespoke trade deal and the bog standard rules and so to argue the default and bog standard rules are some sort of trade deal we should aspire to is utterly nonsensical. When we leave the EU we will be tearing up bespoke trade deals with a third of the world and we will have none in place. By trade deals, I don’t mean the default rules that apply when no trade deal exists between two nations or trading blocs. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2018 19:04:45 GMT
'Soon we will have trade deals with none of the world' That's word for word what you originally posted. You are wrong. WTO terms are the least we can expect when trading with anyone and better terms WILL be sorted bi-laterally and unilaterally with many countries as soon as we're allowed to (and I suspect you know this) Nobody since this thread was started, I don't think, has said that what we currently get a particularly bad deal at the moment within the EU. Let's not forget though, the EU is no longer simply a trading organisation. If it wasn't for everything that HAS to come with it then chances are there would never have been the word 'Brexit' in our vocabulary. What's wrong with simple co-operation without integration? Under WTO rules is how nations trade when there is no bespoke trade deal. Do you understand that? I think you don’t quite understand the difference between a bespoke trade deal and the bog standard rules and so to argue the default and bog standard rules are some sort of trade deal we should aspire to is utterly nonsensical. When we leave the EU we will be tearing up bespoke trade deals with a third of the world and we will have none in place. By trade deals, I don’t mean the default rules that apply when no trade deal exists between two nations or trading blocs. Its Groundhoggy day again I see, as you know we can't sign new deals until we have left the EU and also has been stated there are already loose agreements in place for many of the trade deals to be rolled over. Don't you think it a bit strange though considering how we have not lost any sovereignty that we can not even negotiate trade deals nevermind sign them whilst in the EU tell me another organisation that acts like this. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 19:11:31 GMT
Under WTO rules is how nations trade when there is no bespoke trade deal. Do you understand that? I think you don’t quite understand the difference between a bespoke trade deal and the bog standard rules and so to argue the default and bog standard rules are some sort of trade deal we should aspire to is utterly nonsensical. When we leave the EU we will be tearing up bespoke trade deals with a third of the world and we will have none in place. By trade deals, I don’t mean the default rules that apply when no trade deal exists between two nations or trading blocs. Its Groundhoggy day again I see, as you know we can't sign new deals until we have left the EU and also has been stated there are already loose agreements in place for many of the trade deals to be rolled over. Don't you think it a bit strange though considering how we have not lost any sovereignty that we can not even negotiate trade deals nevermind sign them whilst in the EU tell me another organisation that acts like this. Not many organisations have a trading bloc to be fair so it is hard to find a good comparison!! Your point is valid. But when half our trade is with a certain trading bloc who are our closest neighbours it makes sense to be a member of the biggest free trading bloc the world has ever seen, which also has trade deals with numerous other nations which we benefit from, such as Canada and Japan. There is a certain irony that I am sure is not lost on leave voters for us wanting to be a champion of trade agreements with our first act being to rip up trade agreements with a third of the world! It will take decades to replicate them, particularly from our far weaker bargaining position as we are such a small market compared with our previous bargaining position as a part of the EU. But thank you for confirming my point as I have serious concerns when people like sorethumbs utterly misunderstand the situation. It’s an example of why referenda on such complex issues are terrible ideas when people demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge on the area. I suspect sorethumbs may listen more to you than to me, so thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Nov 26, 2018 20:04:32 GMT
What's your view on Rip's Hard/Soft Brexit referendum, DC? And what about Paul's three wayer? There is no 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit, there's Brexit or there isn't. No-one was talking about 'hard' or 'soft' Brexits before the referendum, they were terms that were quickily chucked into the mix once 'the Plebs' decided to vote the wrong way. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we did have a second vote for a hard or soft Brexit, if hard won that we'd then suddenly start hearing about do we want an 'Ultra Hard Brexit' or do we want a 'Hard Brexit-Lite where we remain in some bits'. They wont let it lie because we've voted the wrong way, so they'll keep trying new ways to make us vote the correct way. It'd be the same with any other type of vote. Leave would be split into multiple options, Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Brexit Plus, True Brexit, Three Bags Full Brexit, and then you'd have Remain. That wouldn't get split, there'd be no Remain & join the Euro, Remain & join Schengen, Remain but Leave if we have to join the Euro etc... No, it'd be done to split the Brexit vote but keep the Remain vote as one block, and therefore maximise the chance of us voting the 'correct' way. I thought Boris and co promised the quickest trade deal in history,friction-less trade no tariffs etc? Or was he telling "porkies" again? |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2018 20:13:01 GMT
Its Groundhoggy day again I see, as you know we can't sign new deals until we have left the EU and also has been stated there are already loose agreements in place for many of the trade deals to be rolled over. Don't you think it a bit strange though considering how we have not lost any sovereignty that we can not even negotiate trade deals nevermind sign them whilst in the EU tell me another organisation that acts like this. Not many organisations have a trading bloc to be fair so it is hard to find a good comparison!! Your point is valid. But when half our trade is with a certain trading bloc who are our closest neighbours it makes sense to be a member of the biggest free trading bloc the world has ever seen, which also has trade deals with numerous other nations which we benefit from, such as Canada and Japan. There is a certain irony that I am sure is not lost on leave voters for us wanting to be a champion of trade agreements with our first act being to rip up trade agreements with a third of the world! It will take decades to replicate them, particularly from our far weaker bargaining position as we are such a small market compared with our previous bargaining position as a part of the EU. But thank you for confirming my point as I have serious concerns when people like sorethumbs utterly misunderstand the situation. It’s an example of why referenda on such complex issues are terrible ideas when people demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge on the area. I suspect sorethumbs may listen more to you than to me, so thank you! Now come on Oggy there are plenty of trading blocs with free trade agreements, NAFTA for one the USA of course are having to spend two years negotiating leaving this oh hold on no they aren't........ As for the EU being a free trading bloc well yes strictly true and of course its also strictly true the Mafia provide security to businesses...... As for decades to replicate I am not linking to the article again saying how many have already indicated they will roll over the agreements, or the argument about copy and pasting or the argument about most favoured nation status etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Nov 26, 2018 20:15:34 GMT
Trump’s just put us at the “back of the queue” as it were....I for one am shocked at this revalation. Mind you, even if this “deal” is shelved I simply don’t believe any trade deal we land with the States will be anything close to what one could call “fair”. He’ll squeeze us for everything we’ve got....and as for that draft trade deal that was circling a few ago 🤮
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 26, 2018 20:16:58 GMT
There is no 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit, there's Brexit or there isn't. No-one was talking about 'hard' or 'soft' Brexits before the referendum, they were terms that were quickily chucked into the mix once 'the Plebs' decided to vote the wrong way. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we did have a second vote for a hard or soft Brexit, if hard won that we'd then suddenly start hearing about do we want an 'Ultra Hard Brexit' or do we want a 'Hard Brexit-Lite where we remain in some bits'. They wont let it lie because we've voted the wrong way, so they'll keep trying new ways to make us vote the correct way. It'd be the same with any other type of vote. Leave would be split into multiple options, Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Brexit Plus, True Brexit, Three Bags Full Brexit, and then you'd have Remain. That wouldn't get split, there'd be no Remain & join the Euro, Remain & join Schengen, Remain but Leave if we have to join the Euro etc... No, it'd be done to split the Brexit vote but keep the Remain vote as one block, and therefore maximise the chance of us voting the 'correct' way. I thought Boris and co promised the quickest trade deal in history,friction-less trade no tariffs etc? Or was he telling "porkies" again? We’ve had ourselves over... |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 26, 2018 20:25:01 GMT
Where do I sign up for my blue passport |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 26, 2018 20:37:12 GMT
'Soon we will have trade deals with none of the world' That's word for word what you originally posted. You are wrong. WTO terms are the least we can expect when trading with anyone and better terms WILL be sorted bi-laterally and unilaterally with many countries as soon as we're allowed to (and I suspect you know this) Nobody since this thread was started, I don't think, has said that what we currently get a particularly bad deal at the moment within the EU. Let's not forget though, the EU is no longer simply a trading organisation. If it wasn't for everything that HAS to come with it then chances are there would never have been the word 'Brexit' in our vocabulary. What's wrong with simple co-operation without integration? Under WTO rules is how nations trade when there is no bespoke trade deal. Do you understand that? I think you don’t quite understand the difference between a bespoke trade deal and the bog standard rules and so to argue the default and bog standard rules are some sort of trade deal we should aspire to is utterly nonsensical. When we leave the EU we will be tearing up bespoke trade deals with a third of the world and we will have none in place. By trade deals, I don’t mean the default rules that apply when no trade deal exists between two nations or trading blocs. *sigh* So I have to point out what you said again oggy - by saying 'none of the world' you are deliberately suggesting that if we lose our deal with the EU then we simply have no trade. You are now saying (since your original comment) 'bespoke' so you should have said instead 'a third of the world' not 'none' Surely when you make a deal it sets out 'rules' for trade. The WTO has rules in place, I've not said it is bespoke. 'You think trading on WTO rules is a bespoke trade deal that we should be aspiring to?' ^Your words. Well, we agree it's not bespoke. But with the WA on offer as it stands then yes, I think we SHOULD aspire to trade on WTO terms. |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 26, 2018 20:44:12 GMT
Under WTO rules is how nations trade when there is no bespoke trade deal. Do you understand that? I think you don’t quite understand the difference between a bespoke trade deal and the bog standard rules and so to argue the default and bog standard rules are some sort of trade deal we should aspire to is utterly nonsensical. When we leave the EU we will be tearing up bespoke trade deals with a third of the world and we will have none in place. By trade deals, I don’t mean the default rules that apply when no trade deal exists between two nations or trading blocs. *sigh* So I have to point out what you said again oggy - by saying 'none of the world' you are deliberately suggesting that if we lose our deal with the EU then we simply have no trade. You are now saying (since your original comment) 'bespoke' so you should have said instead 'a third of the world' not 'none' Surely when you make a deal it sets out 'rules' for trade. The WTO has rules in place, I've not said it is bespoke. 'You think trading on WTO rules is a bespoke trade deal that we should be aspiring to?' ^Your words. Well, we agree it's not bespoke. But with the WA on offer as it stands then yes, I think we SHOULD aspire to trade on WTO terms. Go & tell it to Dumbldoor, cause he understands Gobbledegook |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 26, 2018 20:53:39 GMT
Its Groundhoggy day again I see, as you know we can't sign new deals until we have left the EU and also has been stated there are already loose agreements in place for many of the trade deals to be rolled over. Don't you think it a bit strange though considering how we have not lost any sovereignty that we can not even negotiate trade deals nevermind sign them whilst in the EU tell me another organisation that acts like this. Not many organisations have a trading bloc to be fair so it is hard to find a good comparison!! Your point is valid. But when half our trade is with a certain trading bloc who are our closest neighbours it makes sense to be a member of the biggest free trading bloc the world has ever seen, which also has trade deals with numerous other nations which we benefit from, such as Canada and Japan. There is a certain irony that I am sure is not lost on leave voters for us wanting to be a champion of trade agreements with our first act being to rip up trade agreements with a third of the world! It will take decades to replicate them, particularly from our far weaker bargaining position as we are such a small market compared with our previous bargaining position as a part of the EU. But thank you for confirming my point as I have serious concerns when people like sorethumbs utterly misunderstand the situation. It’s an example of why referenda on such complex issues are terrible ideas when people demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge on the area. I suspect sorethumbs may listen more to you than to me, so thank you! Thank you for your serious concern oggy. Maybe if you didn't try to mislead and then change or clarify what you said in later posts? Maybe then I'd 'understand' Such a complex issue but oggy understands everything Condescending much? |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 26, 2018 20:57:36 GMT
*sigh* So I have to point out what you said again oggy - by saying 'none of the world' you are deliberately suggesting that if we lose our deal with the EU then we simply have no trade. You are now saying (since your original comment) 'bespoke' so you should have said instead 'a third of the world' not 'none' Surely when you make a deal it sets out 'rules' for trade. The WTO has rules in place, I've not said it is bespoke. 'You think trading on WTO rules is a bespoke trade deal that we should be aspiring to?' ^Your words. Well, we agree it's not bespoke. But with the WA on offer as it stands then yes, I think we SHOULD aspire to trade on WTO terms. Go & tell it to Dumbldoor, cause he understands Gobbledegook Sorry you don't understand bath. Not sure if I can help you |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 26, 2018 21:30:48 GMT
Go & tell it to Dumbldoor, cause he understands Gobbledegook Sorry you don't understand bath. Not sure if I can help you Gobbledegook |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2018 21:31:44 GMT
We know far more than we did in 2016. That is clearly demonstrated by how many people simply want to now (and that's the important bit) leave without any deal at all, as a result of what May has negotiated. Not about the deal we don't. We want to Leave with No Deal now because of the Withdrawal Agreement. It's suicide. Remain told us that the so called no deal would happen if we voted to Leave. Out of the SM the sky would fall in 800,000 job loses etc etc. We voted to Leave because Brexit isn't about pounds shillings and pence. Project Continuity Remain are STILL telling us we won't be able to drink the tap water or buy a mars bar if we leave the EU. And guess what, we still want to Leave. Leave told us there was a deal to be done. Even Donald fucking Tusk offered Canada+ back in March. Great, so we Leave on No Deal if we can't get a trade deal agreed. Since then May hasn't even tried. The deal is so bad it has to have been designed this way on purpose. She had 9 months before she triggered A50 and two years to secure something anything and she's got nothing. Zero. So yes, with the EU taking the piss and May encouraging them and not a single legal commitment for the future deal I'm very happy to take No Deal. Very happy. You're absolutely right, Leave did indeed tell us that there was a deal to be done, so what do you to say to the person who voted to leave in good faith, believing that this would be so but is now faced with the very genuine possibility, that if there's going to be an actual Brexit at all, then it's going to be one that comes with no deal whatsoever? If those leave voters who expected a good (and that's the important bit) deal when they voted, would actually prefer to remain, rather than leave with no deal at all, is that your position to them ... "sorry, tough fuckin' shit"? You used the word "we" three times in your post but that's what Brexit means to YOU (which is fine) but I'm sure you would accept that that might not be the case for everybody who voted to leave however. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 21:37:46 GMT
Not many organisations have a trading bloc to be fair so it is hard to find a good comparison!! Your point is valid. But when half our trade is with a certain trading bloc who are our closest neighbours it makes sense to be a member of the biggest free trading bloc the world has ever seen, which also has trade deals with numerous other nations which we benefit from, such as Canada and Japan. There is a certain irony that I am sure is not lost on leave voters for us wanting to be a champion of trade agreements with our first act being to rip up trade agreements with a third of the world! It will take decades to replicate them, particularly from our far weaker bargaining position as we are such a small market compared with our previous bargaining position as a part of the EU. But thank you for confirming my point as I have serious concerns when people like sorethumbs utterly misunderstand the situation. It’s an example of why referenda on such complex issues are terrible ideas when people demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge on the area. I suspect sorethumbs may listen more to you than to me, so thank you! Now come on Oggy there are plenty of trading blocs with free trade agreements, NAFTA for one the USA of course are having to spend two years negotiating leaving this oh hold on no they aren't........ As for the EU being a free trading bloc well yes strictly true and of course its also strictly true the Mafia provide security to businesses...... As for decades to replicate I am not linking to the article again saying how many have already indicated they will roll over the agreements, or the argument about copy and pasting or the argument about most favoured nation status etc etc Can you show me that article? I have not seen that. The EU is much more than a trading bloc. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 21:42:17 GMT
Under WTO rules is how nations trade when there is no bespoke trade deal. Do you understand that? I think you don’t quite understand the difference between a bespoke trade deal and the bog standard rules and so to argue the default and bog standard rules are some sort of trade deal we should aspire to is utterly nonsensical. When we leave the EU we will be tearing up bespoke trade deals with a third of the world and we will have none in place. By trade deals, I don’t mean the default rules that apply when no trade deal exists between two nations or trading blocs. *sigh* So I have to point out what you said again oggy - by saying 'none of the world' you are deliberately suggesting that if we lose our deal with the EU then we simply have no trade. You are now saying (since your original comment) 'bespoke' so you should have said instead 'a third of the world' not 'none' Surely when you make a deal it sets out 'rules' for trade. The WTO has rules in place, I've not said it is bespoke. 'You think trading on WTO rules is a bespoke trade deal that we should be aspiring to?' ^Your words. Well, we agree it's not bespoke. But with the WA on offer as it stands then yes, I think we SHOULD aspire to trade on WTO terms. No trade deals is different to no trade. I never said we would have no trade. No person who has ever spoken about a trade deal has ever included WTO as a trade deal before. Either you are a visionary or you misunderstand trade deals and WTO set of rules and when they do and do not apply. I wonder which...we already know that you are not much of economist if you want big trade tariffs over none whatsoever for half your trade. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2018 21:46:35 GMT
Not many organisations have a trading bloc to be fair so it is hard to find a good comparison!! Your point is valid. But when half our trade is with a certain trading bloc who are our closest neighbours it makes sense to be a member of the biggest free trading bloc the world has ever seen, which also has trade deals with numerous other nations which we benefit from, such as Canada and Japan. There is a certain irony that I am sure is not lost on leave voters for us wanting to be a champion of trade agreements with our first act being to rip up trade agreements with a third of the world! It will take decades to replicate them, particularly from our far weaker bargaining position as we are such a small market compared with our previous bargaining position as a part of the EU. But thank you for confirming my point as I have serious concerns when people like sorethumbs utterly misunderstand the situation. It’s an example of why referenda on such complex issues are terrible ideas when people demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge on the area. I suspect sorethumbs may listen more to you than to me, so thank you! Thank you for your serious concern oggy. Maybe if you didn't try to mislead and then change or clarify what you said in later posts? Maybe then I'd 'understand' Such a complex issue but oggy understands everything Condescending much? I don’t pretend to understand everything but I have studied the area and deal with EU law daily in my profession. I am certainly not an expert. If you feel I am misleading that when i say trade deal with another country I am not referring to WTO rules then you must be constantly baffled by every mention of trade and Brexit as you are the only person engaing in the issue that doesn’t know what is meant by a “trade deal”. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 27, 2018 7:33:47 GMT
We're not talking about 2016 though are we Paul ? We've done that 2 and a half years ago and the decision was leave. We can't just keep returning to square one over and over again because some people aren't happy with the original outcome. The decision was made in 2016, ratified by Parliament, and the subsequent "deal" should now be considered, debated, and voted on. As such we should now address the current situation in 2018. If there is to be a second referendum then it should be (IMO) either No Deal or May's Deal. (It may well also be that some voters who voted to remain in 2016 would now also vote to leave). I guess I'm talking about the imminent future. It will be considered, debated and voted on and it won't get through parliament. If as a result, it goes back to the people, then as a result of having far more information to base a decesion on, then the option not to leave should be there. Personally, I don't think this will happen. I think parliament will reject her deal and depending on how close the vote is, she may go back to them again but she will still fail and she will have no choice but to resign and ultimately we may well end up in a general election. What happens to Brexit then is anybody's guess but I assume it will very much depend on how Labour decides they want to play their hand, now that they will be forced into finally showing a proper one. I can't see her getting it through parliament but that doesn't mean that a general election is the likely outcome. More than likely they'll be a Tory leadership contest and whoever wins will have a big decision to make and ultimately it will involve taking the decision back to the people (as Parliament are incapable of uniting over a decision) Then I think the people will vote to remain. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 27, 2018 8:00:46 GMT
I guess I'm talking about the imminent future. It will be considered, debated and voted on and it won't get through parliament. If as a result, it goes back to the people, then as a result of having far more information to base a decesion on, then the option not to leave should be there. Personally, I don't think this will happen. I think parliament will reject her deal and depending on how close the vote is, she may go back to them again but she will still fail and she will have no choice but to resign and ultimately we may well end up in a general election. What happens to Brexit then is anybody's guess but I assume it will very much depend on how Labour decides they want to play their hand, now that they will be forced into finally showing a proper one. I can't see her getting it through parliament but that doesn't mean that a general election is the likely outcome. More than likely they'll be a Tory leadership contest and whoever wins will have a big decision to make and ultimately it will involve taking the decision back to the people (as Parliament are incapable of uniting over a decision) Then I think the people will vote to remain. Personally I don’t believe there would be a remain vote but if there was would the remain voters acept a three year concerted disruptive campaign to thwart there democratic choice Because if this vote is over turned this country is going to be very difficult to govern and you will see the rise in parties best left alone |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 27, 2018 9:00:07 GMT
I can't see her getting it through parliament but that doesn't mean that a general election is the likely outcome. More than likely they'll be a Tory leadership contest and whoever wins will have a big decision to make and ultimately it will involve taking the decision back to the people (as Parliament are incapable of uniting over a decision) Then I think the people will vote to remain. Personally I don’t believe there would be a remain vote but if there was would the remain voters acept a three year concerted disruptive campaign to thwart there democratic choice Because if this vote is over turned this country is going to be very difficult to govern and you will see the rise in parties best left alone I agree, and they haven't been "incapable" of uniting over a decision, they have been unwilling to. Batting it back to the people is rank cowardice and a pretence of democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 27, 2018 9:48:40 GMT
I see the pathetic excuse of a PM has now called for a Brexit TV debate. Where was the coward when she called her cynical General Election?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 27, 2018 10:07:52 GMT
I see the pathetic excuse of a PM has now called for a Brexit TV debate. Where was the coward when she called her cynical General Election? And what a great debate it'll be. A woman who is 100% pro-Remain arguing the case for Brexit, against a bloke who is 100% pro-Brexit arguing the case for Remaining. EDIT : And what's the betting Theresa doesn't argue for a proper Brexit, just for her load of wank deal. And Jezza will bang the drum for a second referendum & for Remain. The stitch-up is nearly complete! |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 27, 2018 10:20:56 GMT
I see the pathetic excuse of a PM has now called for a Brexit TV debate. Where was the coward when she called her cynical General Election? The time for change is coming Corbyn soon has to make a choice either way he’s toast you can’t ride two horses with one arse indefinitely |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 27, 2018 10:26:35 GMT
I see the pathetic excuse of a PM has now called for a Brexit TV debate. Where was the coward when she called her cynical General Election? And what a great debate it'll be. A woman who is 100% pro-Remain arguing the case for Brexit, against a bloke who is 100% pro-Brexit arguing the case for Remaining. EDIT : And what's the betting Theresa doesn't argue for a proper Brexit, just for her load of wank deal. And Jezza will bang the drum for a second referendum & for Remain. The stitch-up is nearly complete! Fucking pathetic, isn't it? Maybe we should start one of those Channel 5 ads for Jezza? "Just £3 a month could buy Jeremy a set of balls". It's not that complicated,is it? The government is not doing what it promised it would. It's inexcusable. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 27, 2018 10:30:44 GMT
And what a great debate it'll be. A woman who is 100% pro-Remain arguing the case for Brexit, against a bloke who is 100% pro-Brexit arguing the case for Remaining. EDIT : And what's the betting Theresa doesn't argue for a proper Brexit, just for her load of wank deal. And Jezza will bang the drum for a second referendum & for Remain. The stitch-up is nearly complete! Fucking pathetic, isn't it? Maybe we should start one of those Channel 5 ads for Jezza? "Just £3 a month could buy Jeremy a set of balls". It's not that complicated,is it? The government is not doing what it promised it would. It's inexcusable. It’s absolutely no point in buying corbyn a set of balls he’d still have to ask McDonnells permission to use them |
|
