Farage says Brexit will be delayed again when PM Johnson's deal falls

[BobBKK]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What second referendum would that be?

 

The first one has not been completed yet.

No one voted for this chaos. It should be vote for a deal (or no deal) or Remain.

[Basil B]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

If the Lib Dems win the General Election there is no way they should be given power.

 

Everyone should pontificate for 3 years, claim the Lib Dem voters were stupid or didn't know what they voted for, then claim a lot of the voters have since died so the vote is no longer valid. Then simply let Parliament argue amongst themselves about the best way forward (after all, Parliament is sovereign) and then point out the vote is now 3 years old so we need to have another election before the Lib Dems even get into government. After all, people are allowed to change their minds, right. Democracy doesn't happen on one day, right.

 

That's the way the Liberal Democrats like it, so let them taste their own medicine. Swinson is a disgrace. Lied about tuition fees and now lied about respecting the referendum result. Yet expects the GE result to stand if she wins. What a muppet.

 

If the LibDems win (big if) it will be because they have a a swift and easy solution to Brexit, and they would have won because that is what electorate wants.

 

They have made a clear commitment to that.

 

They have said also they still are pushing for a 2nd referendum in this parliament, and they will have no problem entering into any coalition that promises a second referendum (as long as it is not lead by Boris or Corbyn).

 

So if they do win that would be a clear mandate to Revoke Article 50 on day one of a new parliament, and start on the other business that has been neglected while attempting to push through a ill-thought out Brexit, like tax reform, rehabilitation of offenders, the social care system, the NHS, housing, Climate change, crime, transport and reform of parliament.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Brexiteers dont know what they want. Before the referendum they all said they wanted to leave with a deal.

Suddenly after they won it changed to we all voted to leave with no deal.

You guys cant even get a consensus in the Conservative party for what you want.

So in your opinion 17.4 million voters didn't have a clue what they were voting for. How wonderful and smart (I forgot arrogant) you must be to know that all 17.4 million people voted wrongly.

 

IIRC the referendum gave 2 choices, Leave or Remain.

 

There was no hard, soft, BRINO or anything else on the voting paper, just Leave or Remain.

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

Of course, one could argue that irrespective of the legally advisory-only nature of the referendum, the promises made to the electorate at the time were politically and miorally binding and should be honoured. 

I don’t think anyone would argue that a prime minister (or his government, or his party) should stand above the law, and that putting a prime minister above the law should be considered moral or honest. 

 

Quote

But as the marathorn bid to betray the referendum result rolls on, to use the words "moral" and "Parliament" in the same breath is to utter an oxymoron.

As we agree that the referendum was not binding, there is not betrayal of the referendum result. 

[Basil B]

19 minutes ago, rhyddid said:

Brexiters shall start to see the true, who really finance Falange, BJ? 
Follow the money and  you will see who they sold UK !

Not forgetting the dishonourable member for Bromsgrove...

Quote

Sajid Javid is under pressure to reveal whether he took part in a controversial tax-avoiding bonus scheme during his years at Deutsche Bank.

Mr Javid’s office declined yesterday to answer specific questions on whether the business secretary was involved in the scheme or whether he paid income tax on bonuses he received.

https://www.ft.com/content/c8c07790-e7a9-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39

 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Well, ideal if you're an anti-democratic federalist.

Have another vote with the actual deal you can get not the fantasy easy exit the voters were lied to about. OK? What are Brexiter afraid of? Duh. They KNOW they would lose such a vote. So which side is anti-democratic. 

[Blue Muton]

6 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

Remainers don't want a good deal, that's the problem. This defines their divisiveness.

For every single referendum we've had, the losing side has accepted the result and moved on, and that is key to repairing any rifts afterwards. Even in Scotland, an similarly contentious referendum, with a similar result, has not be dragged to the brink of civil war by the losing side. Until Remainers unite around a clear and sincere vision of what they want that also accepts the result, then this situation will drag on further. Leavers are very clear and consistent, we want out, and WTO is fine.

 

It's Remainers who are the problem, because they keep trying to apply post-referendum conditions that they have no reasonable right to. Remainers can be bitter and angry towards Leavers all they want, but it's Remainers' own leadership that failed them. Remainers failed to make the case for Remain, failed to inform the electorate of facts, and just expected voters to lap up overt apocalyptic propaganda, all voters ever heard from Remain was how bad Leaving was, not how good Remaining was. They did this with a fair wind behind their sails, and all the resources and support they would wish for from the establishment, they hijacked the Jo Cox murder, they pulled every dirty trick in the book, and they failed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Hey, at least I know I'm a tit!

 

Well, you said it.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

6 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

...says the person who thinks people shouldn’t exercise their right of free speech by booing a Prime Minister ???? 

 

It was an advisory referendum only. Nothing is being ignored.  

I never said that. I said that giving a press conference is not the place for yobs to shout. Once again you twist words to suit your agenda. you are not very good at it though. Advisory referendum. You still playing that old chestnut. Even the Liberal Non-democrats admit its legality. They just are ignoring it.

 

If you were local your understanding would be greater I believe and wouldn't have to question this so often.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

There was no hard, soft, BRINO or anything else on the voting paper, just Leave or Remain

yes but for those who are challenged or simply can't accept democracy they add anything to the words leave, to make their fluffy heads feel better.

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

So in your opinion 17.4 million voters didn't have a clue what they were voting for. How wonderful and smart (I forgot arrogant) you must be to know that all 17.4 million people voted wrongly.

 

IIRC the referendum gave 2 choices, Leave or Remain.

 

There was no hard, soft, BRINO or anything else on the voting paper, just Leave or Remain.

Where did I say they didn't have a clue?

Nice straw man there.

As you will recall the Leave campaign said we would leave with a deal.

So a lot of those who voted leave will have done so based on us leaving with a deal.

Brexit fundamentalists have hijacked those votes so as to mean leaving with no deal.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Basil B said:

If the LibDems win (big if) it will be because they have a a swift and easy solution to Brexit, and they would have won because that is what electorate wants.

 

They have made a clear commitment to that.

 

They have said also they still are pushing for a 2nd referendum in this parliament, and they will have no problem entering into any coalition that promises a second referendum (as long as it is not lead by Boris or Corbyn).

 

So if they do win that would be a clear mandate to Revoke Article 50 on day one of a new parliament, and start on the other business that has been neglected while attempting to push through a ill-thought out Brexit, like tax reform, rehabilitation of offenders, the social care system, the NHS, housing, Climate change, crime, transport and reform of parliament.

I'm all for remain but I disagree with the Lib Dems being able to ignore the result of the referendum.

They should stick to a policy of a confirmatory referendum not one of simply revoking article 50.

[Blue Muton]

49 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So you agree that entry into the EEC now the EU should be scrapped due to the enormous fraud and lies of Ted Heath?

 

I think I know your answer. Your a fraud.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion as I'm not the one convicted of multiple counts of the "most serious" acts of electoral fraud. That would be the leave campaign.

 

Neither have I mysteriously "acquired" £6m of unaccounted cash, contrary to electoral law. That too would be the leave campaign.

[CharlieH]

reported flame post removed.

[Jip99]

9 hours ago, tebee said:

 

Yes, the latest talk is he will bring back TM's deal with or without cosmetic changes. They reckon there are only about 10  Tory eurosceptic rebels who will oppose it and maybe 50 Lab who will support it . 

 

It might pass.

 

It's still not a good deal.

 

 

I agree 100% that it is not a good deal.

 

Regrettably, you cannot get blood out of a stone and the parliamentary watchword is now “Any deal is better than No Deal”.

[Laughing Gravy]

11 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

Not sure how you came to that conclusion as I'm not the one convicted of multiple counts of the "most serious" acts of electoral fraud. That would be the leave campaign.

 

Neither have I mysteriously "acquired" £6m of unaccounted cash, contrary to electoral law. That too would be the leave campaign.

So again you are talking about fraud. It is clearly documented that Ted Heath consistently lied to secure the UK into the EEC now EU.

Are you going to agree or do the typical remainers trait and ignore it, when they have been shown to be disingenuous.

 

 

[tebee]

1 minute ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I agree 100% that it is not a good deal.

 

Regrettably, you cannot get blood out of a stone and the parliamentary watchword is now “Any deal is better than No Deal”.

Unfortunately Johnson is more interested in saving his career than what is good for the country  - can both leavers and remainers agree on that? 

[Jip99]

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

Unfortunately Johnson is more interested in saving his career than what is good for the country  - can both leavers and remainers agree on that? 

No........ because we don’t agree on what is best for the country. If Johnson achieves Brexit, THAT will be best for the country IMO.

 

Whilst I am not his biggest fan I actually believe that he is trying to get the job AND I genuinely believe he wants a deal. Had he been appointed PM instead of May I am sure the deal would have been put to bed long ago.

 

If Johnson only wanted to save his neck, and the Tory party, he simply needs to enter a pact with Farage..... whilst he would need to sacrifice seats the Tories would likely retain power with a workable majority.

 

I don’t believe he wants that arrangement.

[Nigel Garvie]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 If they not only had the majority of seats in the House, but also polled well over 50% of the votes nationwide, then I'd say go for it.

 

But even if she wins the most seats, will she have over 50% of the votes? The last time that happened was 1931!

 

So, I'm against her party's policy; let's settle this in the only true democratic way; a final, legally binding referendum.

Well there is nothing wrong, or illegal, or undemocratic (As the whining leavers love to say), about what she is proposing. It is an advisory referendum, the Lib Dems have always been against Brexit, Parliament is Sovereign, if it decides to reject the advice it is entirely within it's rights to do so. The chances of them being in a position to reject A50, are utterly remote, so no need for anyone to get worked up about it. It is simply IMO a tactical move to draw a clean line between them and Labour.  All parties promise things before elections that they never expect to have to put into action. It is quite obvious that Bojo and Gove were totally thrown when they won the referendum. The look on their faces said what the (deleted) are we going to do now.

 

Dumping A50 is fine by me, but unlikely. The key thing is to avoid a GE till Brexit is sorted one way or the other, ideally by a referendum. A GE should never be about one topic, that's a complete misuse of it. I would like to go back to issues like the economy, the NHS, social policy, etc etc etc. I just wish the whole Brexit thing would pi#s off, before it destroys the economy and the social fabric of the country.

[Jip99]

21 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Well there is nothing wrong, or illegal, or undemocratic (As the whining leavers love to say), about what she is proposing. It is an advisory referendum, the Lib Dems have always been against Brexit, Parliament is Sovereign, if it decides to reject the advice it is entirely within it's rights to do so. The chances of them being in a position to reject A50, are utterly remote, so no need for anyone to get worked up about it. It is simply IMO a tactical move to draw a clean line between them and Labour.  All parties promise things before elections that they never expect to have to put into action. It is quite obvious that Bojo and Gove were totally thrown when they won the referendum. The look on their faces said what the (deleted) are we going to do now.

 

Dumping A50 is fine by me, but unlikely. The key thing is to avoid a GE till Brexit is sorted one way or the other, ideally by a referendum. A GE should never be about one topic, that's a complete misuse of it. I would like to go back to issues like the economy, the NHS, social policy, etc etc etc. I just wish the whole Brexit thing would pi#s off, before it destroys the economy and the social fabric of the country.

 

 

Some good points.

 

However, I don’t want Brexit to go away - I want it resolved. It is the biggest democratic issue this country has faced.

 

I do now accept your point about separating Brexit from a GE. I didn’t, I previously believed a GE was necessary to break the impasse and I was fundamentally against a second referendum as it flys in the face of democracy.

 

You are absolutely right - a GE is about more than just Brexit ad it raises the question - would 16m people really vote for the Lib Dems?

 

I thinkLabour has one chance, if there is an election before Brexit, and that is to ape the Lib Dems and go ‘all in” for revoking Article 50. They have a core of up to 10m voters whilst the Lib Dems were around 2.5m before UKIP were wiped out in the last election - even then they only polled 6m votes.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

I don’t think anyone would argue that a prime minister (or his government, or his party) should stand above the law, and that putting a prime minister above the law should be considered moral or honest. 

 

As we agree that the referendum was not binding, there is not betrayal of the referendum result. 

You conveniently omit the paragraph in which I surmised this that exactly this kind of duplicitous thinking was what lay behind Cameron's failure to make the referendum result legally binding.

 

Reckon you've missed your vocation. All those in favour say "Aye"!

[Blue Muton]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

You conveniently omit the paragraph in which I surmised this that exactly this kind of duplicitous thinking was what lay behind Cameron's failure to make the referendum result legally binding.

 

Reckon you've missed your vocation.

Well had the referendum been legally binding then it would have been possible for the Electoral Commission to declare the vote void due to the multiple "most serious" frauds committed by the leave campaign. The very fact that it was advisory meant that the EC did not have that option.

[CaptainNemo]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Farage and Brexiteers  pointing fingers at the ‘the elite’ is laughable.

 

Brexit funded by a handful of Billionaires, Multimillionaires and hedge fund manager, lead by old Eton-ions and their Bullingdon club chums.

 

 

In complete contrast to the Remain everymen, like the millionaire socialist front bench of Labour, and the various millionaire socialist archons of the EU commission, Etonian/Bullingdon Remainers like Osborne and Cameron, hedge fund managers like Soros... it's fire fighting fire, and the EU is fired.

[CaptainNemo]

10 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

Well had the referendum been legally binding then it would have been possible for the Electoral Commission to declare the vote void due to the multiple "most serious" frauds committed by the leave campaign. The very fact that it was advisory meant that the EC did not have that option.

Ys, and the various Remain expenses scandals of outfits like the Lib Dems and BSE, and the interference from the "Venice Commission"

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/95175/fresh-fines-remain-campaigners-after-referendum-expenses

The biased Electoral Commission had it's knuckles wrapped over it's conduct regarding misadvising the Leave campaign, and then later attacking Leave... did they do it on purpose?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676

 

Having a legally binding referendum on Leave would be unbalanced given that the vote to confirm entering the predecessor of the predecessor of the predecessor of the EU was not binding.

[puipuitom]

23 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Life would be wonderful when all the Leavers could just leave and live with the consequences.

And all the Remainers would remain in the EU.

But obviously that is not possible - sorry to state the obvious.

 

Where are the capable leaders who unite the nation and who are willing to do compromises and explain to people that compromises are inevitable? And where are the voters who vote for these uniting leaders? 

The UK will only beunited, when all can "enjoy" a few months or longer the "advantages" of being completely out of the EU.

No sharing a LOT of activities anymore, but all on the expenses of the British themselves, import duty according WTO rules ( 10% on cars, 13,8 % on confectionary, and many more) nd a Schengen visa just like all others ccoming from "third nations", will cure a lot of British problems very soon.

[tebee]

56 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

No.

 

Whilst I am not his biggest fan I actually believe that he is trying to get the job AND I genuinely believe he wants a deal. Had he been appointed PM instead of May I am sure the deal would have been put to bed long ago.

 

If Johnson only wanted to save his neck, and the Tory party, he simply needs to enter a pact with Farage..... whilst he would need to sacrifice seats the Tories would likely retain power with a workable majority.

 

I don’t believe he wants that arrangement.

The tactical problem with going for a pact with Farage is the the only valid response to that the other parties have is to hold their noses and form a Lib/Lab/SNP/green Remain alliance. The GE then turns into a defacto second referendum - and at the moment remain is leading in the polls so he'd probably lose. 

[Jip99]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

The tactical problem with going for a pact with Farage is the the only valid response to that the other parties have is to hold their noses and form a Lib/Lab/SNP/green Remain alliance. The GE then turns into a defacto second referendum - and at the moment remain is leading in the polls so he'd probably lose. 

 

I don’t think he would lose........but that would be up to the electorate decide.

 

I still think Labour will screw it up because, ironically, I think Corbyn is more interested in saving his neck rather than doing what is best. Remember, there are a lot of Labour supporters who voted the leave - and Corbyn’s previous manifesto included delivering Brexit. To jump onto  the ‘scrap Article 50’ bandwagon would leave a few Labour supporters scratching their heads. If he doesn’t, the Labour vote will be split.

[CaptainNemo]

58 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Well there is nothing wrong, or illegal, or undemocratic (As the whining leavers love to say), about what she is proposing. It is an advisory referendum, the Lib Dems have always been against Brexit, Parliament is Sovereign, if it decides to reject the advice it is entirely within it's rights to do so. The chances of them being in a position to reject A50, are utterly remote, so no need for anyone to get worked up about it. It is simply IMO a tactical move to draw a clean line between them and Labour.  All parties promise things before elections that they never expect to have to put into action. It is quite obvious that Bojo and Gove were totally thrown when they won the referendum. The look on their faces said what the (deleted) are we going to do now.

 

Dumping A50 is fine by me, but unlikely. The key thing is to avoid a GE till Brexit is sorted one way or the other, ideally by a referendum. A GE should never be about one topic, that's a complete misuse of it. I would like to go back to issues like the economy, the NHS, social policy, etc etc etc. I just wish the whole Brexit thing would pi#s off, before it destroys the economy and the social fabric of the country.

There might be nothing "illegal" (until tested in court) about what she is proposing, but it is hardly Liberal or Democratic.

If you think rejecting the the idea that you just casually dismiss a referendum result that's the largest vote for anything in national history is "whining", then you can't credibly call anyone else a dictator.

"Dumping Article 50" is disgusting, especially when Leave has tolerated 3 years of whining about the result from the Remainers, when we should have left in 2016 with no deal, and turned the UK into the Atlantic Singapore that Germany fears.

The moment you disregard the referendum, is the moment you undermine the whole concept of referenda and further disengage a public that's already had enough of politicians and corruption.

 

For Brexiteers, what the LibDems are doing is fantastic, as they are being utterly divisive and self-serving, and splitting the Labour and Remain vote.

The only people wrecking the economy are the vocal minority of whining Remainers, who should take a leaf out of the book of the losers of the Scottish referendum and stop throwing their toys out the pram day after day, irritating the majority of the country. They've turned a straightforward thing into something close to a civil war.

 

[Blue Muton]

5 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

Ys, and the various Remain expenses scandals of outfits like the Lib Dems and BSE, and the interference from the "Venice Commission"

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/95175/fresh-fines-remain-campaigners-after-referendum-expenses

The biased Electoral Commission had it's knuckles wrapped over it's conduct regarding misadvising the Leave campaign, and then later attacking Leave... did they do it on purpose?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676

 

Having a legally binding referendum on Leave would be unbalanced given that the vote to confirm entering the predecessor of the predecessor of the predecessor of the EU was not binding.

I wonder why it to so long for a Quitter to bring up the infringements from the remain side, seems up until now nobody has been daft enough to compare a few minor indiscretions (note the £2,000 fine in your link) with what has been described by the head of the EC as "most serious", deliberate fraud by the leave campaign, resulting in four fines each of the maximum £20,000.

 

As for the EC being biased? What utter nonsense.

 

Try comparing apples with apples.

 

For the record I have no hesitation in condemning all breaches of law and trust in these matters, regardless of which side it comes from.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and off topic replies have been removed. 

[puipuitom]

5 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

Your post is offensive and off topic.

I advise you to read: it is a response to the suggestion, to seperate the UK in a "leavers" and a "remainers" part, with reference to the seperation of British India in India and Pakistan. Same could be doen with the UK ( and will probably happen, as the Scots as well as the North-Irish will NOT like to leave the EU seen all fiancial and economical advantages).

And looking to all cartoons... NOT MY invention