Jump to content
Davebrad

Brexit again...

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, For Us All said:

It seems that the Remainers don't know what they want either.Up until Boris agreed a deal last week all they wanted was to prevent No Deal.

Another bunch of liars.

Labour MP Caroline Flint got it spot on yesterday when she said.

"This was a panic measure to reinsert  the 3-month delay for one reason only - to thwart a deal".

 

Decide what your opinion is and I can answer you, otherwise it’s just irrelevant noise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davebrad said:

neither side knew what it would mean, but all parliament apart from 80 or so voted for article 50... that's when the mither started.

So are you saying that the vote should have been honoured or not? You seem to be suggesting they should  not have voted to invoke article 50?  Make your mind up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, For Us All said:

They were probably too busy promoting a No-Deal Brexit to help their hedge funding mates?

Thankfully sensible folks have stopped that from happening.  However you will just carry on being a bit of a pillock, posting snipes but offering nothing real because you haven't got the first idea what you are on about, let alone capable of forming an educated opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, For Us All said:

It seems that the Remainers don't know what they want either.

 

The clue is in the name.   I thought you reckoned you were clever??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

So are you saying that the vote should have been honoured or not? You seem to be suggesting they should  not have voted to invoke article 50?  Make your mind up.

I have always said, and continue to say the only democratic way is to honour the result, and by voting overwhelmingly to invoke article 50 parliament at that time, were pursuing that result...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andyregs said:

Is that a joke. ‘Project fear’ was clear that leaving would be a disaster. Look back in what was posted on here. We said there would be a choice between a no deal and a bad deal. 

And what bus did the leave campaign use? 

Look at the last paragraph

Alternatives_are_all_worse.pdf?146340008

Last page won’t scroll, but it’s says 

“A vote to leave is a vote for risk. Vote Leave say they’ll walk away from the single market and negotiate a new deal, but they can’t explain what it would be and how long it will take. The truth is if we left, the EU would not give us a better deal than they have for themselves. That means jobs aren’t safe, prices will rise, mortgages will be at risk, and funding for your local school or hospital will fall. It is a risk not worth taking. We can’t afford to leave the EU.”

Domt blame the ignorance of leave voters and campaigners on those who wanted to avoid it.

Did they mention hard boarders or the GF agreement..... that alone would have been a better strategy than criticising the bus.

A lot of the leave campaign was based on projections that didn't materialise.

The leave campaign didn't do their job any better, neither side knew. I'm not talking voters, the people in the know didn't know, with all the resources at their disposal they didn't have a clue, you can't blame voters for not knowing.... on either side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

I have always said, and continue to say the only democratic way is to honour the result, and by voting overwhelmingly to invoke article 50 parliament at that time, were pursuing that result...

Sadly, they were not all pursuing the same result.  The fact that so many voted against May's deal shows that.  Remember a considerable number of Tories who had voted to invoke Article 50 didn't support the means of implementing it.  This has been the problem all along. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Imagine! A Leader of the Opposition who wants to become Prime Minister. The monster!

 

There are some really <ovf censored> dense people on here.

Yes and you’re the biggest.

What chance has incontinent Corbyn got of becoming Prime Minister.

Long May he last he is doing a brilliant job of showing us what a buffoon he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Erniemossrules said:

 

What chance has incontinent Corbyn got of becoming Prime Minister.

How have you achieved this close relationship with Corbyn's underpants??

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, geosname said:

Did they mention hard boarders or the GF agreement..... that alone would have been a better strategy than criticising the bus.

A lot of the leave campaign was based on projections that didn't materialise.

The leave campaign didn't do their job any better, neither side knew. I'm not talking voters, the people in the know didn't know, with all the resources at their disposal they didn't have a clue, you can't blame voters for not knowing.... on either side.

Jesus wept, how his hard is it to understand. The remain campaign didn’t need a plan for the border, they didn’t want to ‘vote for risk’. They didn’t do their job worse as they didn’t tell anyone to vote in the dark. And It’s not as though that’s the only issue. 

Edited by Andyregs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on Dominic Cummings blog from 2015:

Should NO (leave) demand a second referendum in the hope of forcing the parties to commit to one? One can see why NO might argue for a second vote. It enables NO to make a NO vote seem much less risky. ‘If you vote YES, you won’t get another vote for another 40 years – if ever. You should vote NO to Cameron’s rubbish deal. If you vote NO, you will force a new Government to negotiate a new deal and give you a new vote. A NO vote is much safer than a YES vote.’ Further, as a matter of democratic accountability, given the enormous importance of so many issues that would be decided in an Article 50 renegotiation – a far, far bigger deal than a normal election – it seems right to give people a vote on it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Davebrad said:

neither side knew what it would mean, but all parliament apart from 80 or so voted for article 50... that's when the mither started.

 

39 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

I have always said, and continue to say the only democratic way is to honour the result, and by voting overwhelmingly to invoke article 50 parliament at that time, were pursuing that result...

I’ve got no idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, geosname said:

Did they mention hard boarders or the GF agreement..... that alone would have been a better strategy than criticising the bus.

A lot of the leave campaign was based on projections that didn't materialise.

The leave campaign didn't do their job any better, neither side knew. I'm not talking voters, the people in the know didn't know, with all the resources at their disposal they didn't have a clue, you can't blame voters for not knowing.... on either side.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-border

seems pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

The clue is in the name.   I thought you reckoned you were clever??

I was just agreeing with the very educated Mr.Ikea who claimed I was smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read this on another football forum.  I think it is very percentive although I know a number of people on here will know better:

Let's understand what this farago is really all about:

i) it is about an ideological drive towards a deregulated Britain, in a similar vein to  the US model - trashing workers rights , appalling environmental and food standards, etc., etc. In other words "a drive to the bottom".

ii) it is about opening up the NHS to commercial interests, in particular those in the USA. This would effectively be the death knell of the NHS as we know it.

iii) but above all it is about preserving the power of the present  extreme right wing Tory set up in government. They have believed all along that pandering to the broad mass of leavers who bought into the utter cr@p they were sold in the lead up to the Referendum would deliver them electoral success. That remains the driving force rather than what is best for the nation and it's people. Sadly, Corbyn's Labour Party have merrily aided and abetted this exercise.

People, this is really not all about delivering the EU exit that most folk believe to be the objective.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacko51 said:

How have you achieved this close relationship with Corbyn's underpants??

Quote of the year from Jezza.

"Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that we represent"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Nothings clear from those two PM's with their history.

 “What you would actually have to do is end up with having border controls and customs checks.”

1 minute ago, For Us All said:

Quote of the year from Jezza.

"Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that we represent"?

More noise 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy