EU-BREXIT - Page 154 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By B0ycey
#14994412
Atlantis wrote:According to European Parliament sources, Italian right-wing populist Silvani has promised Farage that Italy would veto the extension.

If they have their way, the UK will crash out in less than 2 weeks without a deal.

What irony of history it would be if Farage betrayed his country by allaying with Italian fascists.


We are talking hypotheticals now, but as parliament have rejected "No Deal" and if Italy have indeed agreed to Farages betrayal, the only honorable thing for May to do to save the UK from economic hardship is to revoke article 50 and resign in order to get a true Remainer in power.

#fucktheright
By snapdragon
#14994417
B0ycey wrote:It won't pass even if the DUP accept it (I think they will).


I think so, too...and I hope you're right.

They perhaps might get the support from the ERG if the DUP does accept the deal but there are a few hardliners within the ERG who won't back Mays deal at any cost. Also May is still neglecting her hardcore remainers within her party too. And without complete unity, as her deal does require pretty much all her party and the DUP to back it (which won't happen), it doesn't stand a chance even on the 11th hour.

However if she backed Kyles proposal she could be 4th time lucky as she then has the Lib Dems, TIGs, Labour remainers and perhaps SNP to back her deal in Westminster.


I'm relying on Johm Bercow not to allow it.
By B0ycey
#14994421
snapdragon wrote:I'm relying on Johm Bercow not to allow it.


Why? It is a referendum and it is difficult to find legitimacy to just cancel article 50 without asking the people.

Also May's deal is Brexit. We know what it is. And as such it is a better indication for what people want and whether they want to leave the EU after all. And more importantly Kyles proposal ends the impasse and the UK and Europe can finally move on from Brexit regardless of the result.
By Rich
#14994426
No the referendum was idiotic. the yes result was meaningless. In 1975 it was just about plausible to try and wind things back to where they were in December 31 1972, although even then there would have been considerable challenges and no doubt controversies in implementing a leave result. But anyone now who says we can just leave and wind things back to 1972, is either a liar or an idiot, or quite possible both. This is why we must not give one jot of respect to the referendum result. A second referendum implies some kind of respect for the first referendum, when we should be treating it with total and utter contempt.

The Conservative Party are winning. They have done brilliantly out of the referendum, without the referendum, its as certain as certain can be that Ed Milliband would have been sitting in number 10 now. The Tories have brilliantly exploited the hypocrisy of the British public. the large majority of the British public want a substantial reduction in immigration and in particular they want a substantial reduction in Muslims and sub-Saharan immigration. However they don't want to feel that they are being callous or cold hearted and above all they don't want to appear racist.

When that child washed up on the Kos beach it was terrible, it made British people feel guilty, that was a crucial moment in leaving the EU. we had to get out. If we were outside the EU we wouldn't be responsible, but even better than that we could criticise the EU members for their cruel and callous indifference. As long as we took a few token refugees each time their was a crisis. No I'll rephrase that as long as we took a few token refugees every time MSM decided that there was a crisis. No, lets try again, as long as we promised to take a few refugees every time their was a media storm, whether we actually took any refugees, or whether it all got bogged down in bureaucracy wouldn't matter, because every one would soon forgot about both the crisis and the promise and move on to the next media thing. Then we could pride ourselves on our tolerance, our compassion and the British sense of fair play. We could criticise the EU for incompetence for failing to control their borders, but at the same time we could criticise them for being cruel, callous, bureaucratic and authoritarian.

Britain has a proud history of moral superiority. We didn't just surrender to the Nazis like the cowards on the continent. The German Army suffered 30,000 casualties just taking Jersey alone. The fighting in the Saint Helier ghetto went on for months. The Germans had to keep three crack SS division tied down, just to keep the Chanel Islands pacified.
By snapdragon
#14994487
B0ycey wrote:Why? It is a referendum and it is difficult to find legitimacy to just cancel article 50 without asking the people.


I meant May's future attempt to try for a fourth time to get her bloody awful deal through Parliament.

Also May's deal is Brexit. We know what it is. And as such it is a better indication for what people want and whether they want to leave the EU after all. And more importantly Kyles proposal ends the impasse and the UK and Europe can finally move on from Brexit regardless of the result.



I don't think leave or her deal would be acceptable questions for Brexiters.










The only way out is another referendum. I feel quite confident Brexit will be rejected.
By B0ycey
#14994494
snapdragon wrote:I meant May's future attempt to try for a fourth time to get her bloody awful deal through Parliament.


Depends on the objective. I don't care if May's deal is rejected 30 times in Parliament, if on the 31st is passes with the attachment of a referendum suck to it where we can remain in the EU, I will accept that to break the impasse we find ourselves in.

I don't think leave or her deal would be acceptable questions for Brexiters.


Who cares what they want. The numbers for Kyles ammendment are there if Corbyn whips his MPs to back it and Tory remainers tell May to do one.

The only way out is another referendum. I feel quite confident Brexit will be rejected.


So am I. But we need a referendum first and May isn't budging to give one out - unless she is forced to compromise I suspect.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14994500
Rich wrote:No the referendum was idiotic. the yes result was meaningless. In 1975 it was just about plausible to try and wind things back to where they were in December 31 1972, although even then there would have been considerable challenges and no doubt controversies in implementing a leave result. But This is why we must not give one jot of respect to the referendum result. A second referendum implies some kind of respect for the first referendum, when we should be treating it with total and utter contempt.

The Conservative Party are winning. They have done brilliantly out of the referendum, without the referendum, its as certain as certain can be that Ed Milliband would have been sitting in number 10 now. The Tories have brilliantly exploited the hypocrisy of the British public. the large majority of the British public want a substantial reduction in immigration and in particular they want a substantial reduction in Muslims and sub-Saharan immigration. However they don't want to anyone now who says we can just leave and wind things back to 1972, is either a liar or an idiot, or quite possible both.feel that they are being callous or cold hearted and above all they don't want to appear racist.

When that child washed up on the Kos beach it was terrible, it made British people feel guilty, that was a crucial moment in leaving the EU. we had to get out. If we were outside the EU we wouldn't be responsible, but even better than that we could criticise the EU members for their cruel and callous indifference. As long as we took a few token refugees each time their was a crisis. No I'll rephrase that as long as we took a few token refugees every time MSM decided that there was a crisis. No, lets try again, as long as we promised to take a few refugees every time their was a media storm, whether we actually took any refugees, or whether it all got bogged down in bureaucracy wouldn't matter, because every one would soon forgot about both the crisis and the promise and move on to the next media thing. Then we could pride ourselves on our tolerance, our compassion and the British sense of fair play. We could criticise the EU for incompetence for failing to control their borders, but at the same time we could criticise them for being cruel, callous, bureaucratic and authoritarian.

Britain has a proud history of moral superiority. We didn't just surrender to the Nazis like the cowards on the continent. The German Army suffered 30,000 casualties just taking Jersey alone. The fighting in the Saint Helier ghetto went on for months. The Germans had to keep three crack SS division tied down, just to keep the Chanel Islands pacified.



Nonsense -

You can argue until you are blue-in-the-face that the referendum was 'idiotic' or that the result was 'meaningless' in your words & you will be wrong every time.

As with your turn of phrase, "anyone now who says we can just leave and wind things back to 1972, is either a liar or an idiot, or quite possible both".

The above is typical of the tripe that you post, no one who voted leave did so because they want to return to pre-EC days,so what you post is a typical riposte from anyone without a ligitimate reason in which to contest a democratic decision, saying that British people are "hypocritical',that the the Tories "exploited" that nonsense, is just more of your trademark posting

The rest of your post is equally incoherent, like the nonsense about migration, of which, in total, it is much higher than under Labour, which was bad enough & the real argument is in reality about population levels, it's sustainability economically & socially.

The response to that child washed up on the beach at Kos, was an emotional response, deliberately exploited in the media, Angela MERKEL made a great mistake in falling for the managed hysteria in the media that followed, with her with raising her hands to welcome unrestricted numbers of migrants arriving from the Med, leading to some countries closing their borders to them within the E.U.
By snapdragon
#14994632
nonsense wrote:As with your turn of phrase, "anyone now who says we can just leave and wind things back to 1972, is either a liar or an idiot, or quite possible both".

The above is typical of the tripe that you post, no one who voted leave did so because they want to return to pre-EC days,


Actually, yes they did. It puzzles me that you don't seem to know that.

so what you post is a typical riposte from anyone without a ligitimate reason in which to contest a democratic decision, saying that British people are "hypocritical',that the the Tories "exploited" that nonsense, is just more of your trademark posting


Well, let's face it, a lot of politicians exploited it, mainly because they thought they could say whatever tripe they liked as there was absolutely no chance of the UK voting to leave.

Most of them were Tory wanna be party leaders.

It took them a while to get over the shock of being called on to make good on their promises, but they soon came bouncing back with their weasel words.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14994639
snapdragon wrote:bloody awful deal

The WA is not the 'deal'! The withdrawal agreement governs only the details of leaving the EU, not the long-term relationship between the UK and EU.


:lol:
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14994652
snapdragon wrote:Actually, yes they did. It puzzles me that you don't seem to know that.



Well, let's face it, a lot of politicians exploited it, mainly because they thought they could say whatever tripe they liked as there was absolutely no chance of the UK voting to leave.

Most of them were Tory wanna be party leaders.

It took them a while to get over the shock of being called on to make good on their promises, but they soon came bouncing back with their weasel words.



Nonsense -

Well, you absolutely entitled to your opinion, but, IMHO, I reject what you say, like myself, we can only speak for ourselves, the lack of response by leavers as a group to your assertion confirms my intuitive reasoning that posture by remainers is false.

It is though, a typical response by the 'other' losing side of the argument, that they denigrate the people who made a decisive decision, in spite of potential cost to themselves & others, to leave the E.U.

Snapdragon

"Well, let's face it, a lot of politicians exploited it, mainly because they thought they could say whatever tripe they liked as there was absolutely no chance of the UK voting to leave".

Nonsense -
Again, if I get the context correct, no, the politicians that did not want to leave,it is they who speak total tripe as part of project fear & in their counter-democratic campaign to frustrate Leave.

Let me also say that Theresa MAY signed - off on a 'BAD' deal with the E.U, as part of her subterfuge to foil the democratic decision by the people to Leave the E.U & her intransigence is part of that process to stop Leave.

The reason that it is not just MAY that will be the 'Loser', as she will, it is also the Tory Party itself at the next election, because it had the power, as well; as the wherewithawl to stop the subterfuge that she perpetrated on the population that voted 'Leave' but did nothing to stop it, in particular the 'remainer' MP's & Ministers.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14994703
MV3:

If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on March 12, this would be entirely in order.

What the government cannot legitimately do is resubmit to the house the same proposition - or substantially the same proposition - as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes.


John Bercow, Speaker of the House


:lol:
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14994704
ingliz wrote:MV3:

If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on March 12, this would be entirely in order.

What the government cannot legitimately do is resubmit to the house the same proposition - or substantially the same proposition - as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes.


John Bercow, Speaker of the House


:lol:


Brexiteers using tactics of the dreaded EU :excited: I thought this was one of the EUs most anti-democratic characteristics.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14994710
The Speaker is entirely correct, he has already allowed considerable 'elasticity' in providing for a second vote, against the standing convention existing since 1604.

That 'elasticity' allowed the government two votes in parliament on the same question, Erskine MAY, the parliamentary procedure guide, rules that, by long-standing convention(1604), the question cannot be brought forward again in the same session of parliament.


As has been said, a question has to be 'substantially' different, in order to be accepted by the Speaker for the business of parliament.

The 'second' vote has been accepted as not infringing on those rules, because it could be argued that it was, "a 'different' proposition".

Well, 'how long is a piece of string"?

The fact is, the second vote was not 'substantially' different, so the question is highly contestable when one considers the context in which it occurred.


"Decisions of the house matter. They have weight," he said. “It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house’s time and the proper respect for the decisions which it takes.”

Allowing the second vote, it seems, did not have, either the 'weight' or the 'matter', but was allowed-against the interest of the referendum result, which mattered more & was 'weighted' far more in mattering than any secondary question.

The deliberation ought to bring forward the conclusion of this sorry state of affairs, that has brought the credibility of parliament into question at the deepest level.

It helps in as much as that, as the E.U have said, it's a matter for the U.K to agree a common position in parliament-before-any consideration to allow an 'extension' to Article 50.

The E.U have also said that it's important to them to respect the decision of the British people.

Anything to the contrary would ignite widespread protest against the E.U, because, like 'remainers', it would show utmost disrespect, as well as contempt for democracy & the democratic decision of the British people.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14994713
As there is now not to be a 'third' meaningful vote, the government is reduced to pleading with the European Council for an extension to Article 50.

Personally, I cannot see this happening, because the 'Deal' has been rejected twice & the E.U has already stated that there must be accord within parliament, before requesting an extension.

As the 'Deal' is rejected completely, with no change possible before 29 March, the government(if the E.U agree to an extension)will table a Stututory Instrument to alter the date of leaving.

As I have previously stated, 'Leave' delayed, is 'Leave' denied, the price this government will pay, will fit the 'crime', of that one can be sure.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14994723
Nonsense wrote:the E.U have said, it's a matter for the U.K to agree a common position in parliament-before-any consideration to allow an 'extension' to Article 50.

European Council President Donald Tusk said he will back a "long extension" to the Article 50 Brexit process if the U.K. cannot agree on an exit plan.

"During my consultations ahead of the European Council [summit on March 21-22], I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the U.K. finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it."

So you are wrong as usual. Tusk has offered the extra two years to allow the UK to arrive at a common position.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 18 Mar 2019 18:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14994724
It should be stated that because there is no 'Deal' agreed, there is no ratification on either side, the 'Deal' is dead , long live the 'deal'.

There is simply no reason for the E.U to accept a request for any extension, due to there being no deal that has been accepted, therefore, the idea that an extension be granted, for no purpose at all, is absolutely ridiculous.
There is nothing to do now,save batten down the hatches, call for a 'no confidence' vote , followed by a general election.

To bring that about,the Brexiter's' on the Tory side should abstain from supporting the government in such a vote.

Should CORBYN even think about including a new referendum, or to rejoin as part of it's election manifesto, it will 'remain' in opposition for another generation , 'remainers' should think long & hard about that.



For over two years, parliament has been 'flogging-a-dead-horse' of it's own making.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14994726
[quote="ingliz"]European Council President Donald Tusk said he will back a "long extension" to the Article 50 Brexit process if the U.K. cannot agree on an exit plan.

"During my consultations ahead of the European Council [summit on March 21-22], I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the U.K. finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it."

So you are wrong as usual. Tusk has offered the extra two years to allow the UK to arrive at a common position.

Nonsense -


Actually, it's you who is wrong. :knife: :knife:

It's you who is jumping to conclusions before any such decision is made & for which reasons not to grant one still stand true.

TUSK is irrelevent, even if he recommends it to the Council of the E.U & it's not his decision. :roll: :|
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14994768
fokker wrote:Perhaps the EU should offer a generous 5 year extension or immediate hard brexit! :lol:


@ingliz

The person who has been observing the Brexit drama for the last 3 years wants the EU to just tell the British to fuck off. I mean it is their own damn fault for choosing Brexit so they might as well sacrifice their own well being to show all of us how it is done.

The human being in me realises that it hurts us and screws the British royally beyond reasonable need. But the only thing a long extension can lead to is the same or cancellation of Brexit.

Oh yeah, as much as i like Tusk, fuck him. He used to have the will to say what was needed to be said. Now he is chickening out all of the sudden.
  • 1
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 328

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]