Jump to content

EU will delay Brexit until February if Johnson fails to ratify deal this week - The Sunday Times


webfact

Recommended Posts

If it can be said that a new Parliament will give a clearer view of the electorate's views, then the same can be said of a new referendum. Dozy Hard Brexiteers stuffed on that one.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app


Mrs Wan is the “dozy loser “


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply
41 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Did you not say:

Unless the electorate surprise everybody again and get it wrong for the second time in which case it is not binding just an expression of the voters opinion.

 

I understand that as "remainers will never accept an unfavorable result of a second referendum and will again claim the referendum was not binding".

 

Sorry if you meant something else.

 

 

 

Apology accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

IMHO Brexit should be a standalone "Vote" hence via Referendum 

Did i miss something?They had that referendum already and they should have worked with that.

IMO a second referendum can do more harm then good.

Nobody could have(or did see)what they were getting into,not even the peopel who planned this.

The only piece of advice i have is that if there is going to be another referendum(i find this very likely)make it a mandatory vote.They should have done that in the first place.

I just hope the next countries who want out learn from this mess and do it right from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jvs said:

// I just hope the next countries who want out learn from this mess and do it right from the start.

Next countries ?? :whistling:

I think that we may see the UK asking to enter in the EU again long before any other country has the stupid idea to want to quit it... :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The court that backed Miller and forced TM to obey the law, the court that forced Johnson to recall Parliament or the court that forced Johnson to write a letter he childishly didn’t sign?

 

 

The law is an ass---- Oscar Wilde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Nobody told me it it would be quick and easy - the EU are not capable of that.

 

A deal, at least, sets a foundation.

It will never be over 

 

EHZ5M0YXkAALcd9?format=png&name=small

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, nausea said:

Don't care anymore, took the plunge and transferred money over, and have a steady pension income, so whichever way it goes I win/lose. I'm now looking at a 2 year window for them to sort this mess out. I must say, it's been an eye-opener to me, like, the way politics works.

It's been an eye opener for me too.  I thought for a long time that politicians were pretty low life, especially when they were supposed to be representing the people, but never at this level.  Leaver or remainer we are all in the same boat and the fallout from all this will affect every one of us.

 

Politics in Britain are broken and it may be that way for years to come.  We need to clear out all the dross and start again but who is there to get behind and trust.  I don't see any from the current shower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

I'd love to hear a justification for that statement. Do tell.

Like i said before no one knew what would happen when they decided on a Brexit

vote,i think they hoped for a remain.Done deal,but it went different.

A second vote will only show the incompetence of the government and their lack

of foresight.

If a new vote shows to remain they will still have to deal with the Brexiteers

and the way they will feel betrayed.

If a new vote turns out to be Brexit again what kind of a deal will they have to make?

Either way it will do a great deal of damage in the way the people will trust their government.From both sides and it will be a very long time before politics is taken

serious again.

It is what it is,a great big mess!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

But once resolved, becomes insignificat and we are left with a government who's policies we may or may not agree with. A GE is not and never has been a single issue election. Much more sensible to have a binding people's vote, deal vs. remain. Then have a GE on the real issues that parliament should be dealing with.

 

I disagree strongly with your statement. Brexit, and the consequences thereof, are going to be affecting the UK people and influencing politics for years. However, even if that were not the case, you still have not addressed the main point of my argument, which is that you can't simply extract a single issue and vote on it seperately merely because that issue is inconvenient to the major parties which make up the political status quo.

 

Each candidate and/or party needs to adopt a specific position on brexit, because it is going to be so divisive and so important over the coming years. And you, as a voter, need to choose your representative in part because of their position on this issue. This is actually the perfect chance for new parties to crop up that more closely align with specific voter values.  This is exactly how real change happens.

 

As a final thought, all issues could be considered "insignificant" once resolved by the logic above. After all. They're resolved. You can not treat the brexit issue as special simply because it makes conventional party politics messy. If no major party candidate matches your value on brexit and the economy, find a different candidate who does. Minor parties might actually become the majority if people do this.  This is how representative democracy, which is the UK's chosen form of democracy, is supposed to work.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

I disagree strongly with your statement. Brexit, and the consequences thereof, are going to be affecting the UK people and influencing politics for years. However, even if that were not the case, you still have not addressed the main point of my argument, which is that you can't simply extract a single issue and vote on it seperately merely because that issue is inconvenient to the major parties which make up the political status quo.

 

Each candidate and/or party needs to adopt a specific position on brexit, because it is going to be so divisive and so important over the coming years. And you, as a voter, need to choose your representative in part because of their position on this issue. This is actually the perfect chance for new parties to crop up that more closely align with specific voter values.  This is exactly how real change happens.

 

As a final thought, all issues could be considered "insignificant" once resolved by the logic above. After all. They're resolved. You can not treat the brexit issue as special simply because it makes conventional party politics messy. If no major party candidate matches your value on brexit and the economy, find a different candidate who does. Minor parties might actually become the majority if people do this.  This is how representative democracy, which is the UK's chose form of democracy, is supposed to work.

 

 

Have you not noticed that both brexiteers and remainers (to a lesser extent) are divided on this issue?

So you would need zillions of parties from europhiles to isolationists to stand in every constituency.

OR..... 1 or 2 statesmen that can find a compromise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Nobody told me it it would be quick and easy - the EU are not capable of that.

 

A deal, at least, sets a foundation.

Just remember, this is what you are letting yourself in for....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Monomial said:

However, even if that were not the case, you still have not addressed the main point of my argument, which is that you can't simply extract a single issue and vote on it seperately merely because that issue is inconvenient to the major parties which make up the political status quo.

Isn't that what happened with the 2016 referendum? makes far more sense than a single issue GE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wednesday or Thursday will be crucial.

It can be expected two additional applications. I think a second referendum will not win a majority, but the request to stay in the Customs Union could win a majority. 

Would be a first reasonable, logical step towards a Brexit in stages. Would also give everyone involved the time to settle all the many details more stress-free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It’s divisive because those who lost never accepted the result ! Can only imagine the response from remainers if the leave campaign had reacted the way they had if lost ! Cowardly lying bunch of Europhiles ! And believe me if this were ever reversed there would be anarchy and subversive acts of which I will be a part


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
The result was not no-deal Brexit. Subvert that.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, evadgib said:

Copied and pasted direct from the surrender treaty written by none other than...

image.jpeg.0e4fd31f5bd71620df0b3b78c5f4af5c.jpeg

 

Thankfully there are only 10 days to go.

Any trade arrangements after that are unlikely to take longer than the three and a half years wasted to date despite some of the gloom-merchant predictions in this thread.

 

IMO full umbilical severance is the best possible outcome for UK no matter how painful the short term effect might be.

no other option now. honestly . seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, oldhippy said:

I don't know enough about the labour party to have an opinion about them.

Now please answer my question: do you really believe Boris, Jacob and the Tories have the best interest of the working people in mind?

I will take YOUR word for it.

Do,'es your beloved eu and it's freedom of movement which has led to zero hour contracts,bogus self employment contracts,and the gig economy,how many more times must it be explained to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tebee said:

of course you realize with the deal it won't be over ? It will years and years of negotiating the stuff that's in the political declaration. You will be lucky if we are back to a stable state again in 10 years. 

No deal will be even worse, wouldn't expect that  to be sorted out for a generation or more, especially NI.

 

The people that told you Brexit would be quick and easy - they lied 

What?like project fear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oldhippy said:

I like the "anarchy" part in your post - but I sincerily doubt that your anarchy and my anarchy are the same anarchies. Bit of a hooligan perhaps?

Action speaks louder than signing petitions,want to try it sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

I have also considered this but then heard Tony Blairs argument which I could not fault ... it went something like .... why have an election on one issue (Brexit) why not just have another referendum (confirmatory) and then you can have an election (because we have a no majority gov) on matters that are of greater ideological importance for the coming 10 years (education, health, taxation, social care, environment, etc).

 

I think the issue now is that Brexit is being used as a political gambit by all sides to further their own future governing aims rather than as what it actually is. We need to clear Brexit off the table (either way, yes or no) so we can see the wood from the trees.

 

 

 

When the alliance of opposition parties and Tory rebels took control of the Parliamentary agenda some weeks ago, with the intention of frustrating the governments efforts to deliver Brexit, the government asked for an election. I remember hearing Tony ("look I'm a pretty straight sort of guy") Blair warning against allowing an election, he said Labour would lose, it was, he said, an elephant trap!

 

I too listened to that interview which you describe (the Andrew Neill Programme - yes?) and it seems that he has refined his arguments as any "pretty straight sort of guy" would. However it doesn't take the eyesight of a <deleted>house spider to see that the real reason remains that heffalump trap in the background!

 

As  an aside, it is interesting to note his sudden enthusiasm for further referendums on membership of the EU, given his behaviour in promising such a referendum in 2004 and again in 2005, and then going back on his word. Maybe that duplicitous behaviour is  haunting him, as a "pretty straight sort of guy". Mind you his role, lies and duplicitous behaviour in helping to start a war in 2003 (a war which he could have very probably, and far more honourably prevented), a war which cost the lives of 179 British Soldiers and well over 1/2 a million Iraqi civilians, doesn't seem to bother him, as a "pretty straight sort of guy"!

 

No, an election is needed - it is known as "going to the country" for a reason; but far too many are scared of what the country would say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...