EU-BREXIT - Page 289 - 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.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15043763
Nonsense wrote:
:hmm: Well, no, it's not 'sensible' at all.
The 'backstop' was a device,meant to keep the U.K in the Customs Union, now that the new deal has eliminated that possibility, along comes Labour(again)with their irrational desire to wind back the clock, they have completely lost the plot & are totally disorientated by those deceitful 'plots'.

We had a referendum in 2016, that was democratic, it was final,that was, as the in-fashionista's of Labour might assert, 'confirmatory'(final..fineto), with no desire or necessity to rewind the clock at all.

The idea to 'close any 'loophole' at the end of the transition period' is pie-in-the-sky, because Labour will have lost a general election by a wide margin & BoJo may,just may, have a 'landslide' victory,not quite 'Thatcherite', but significant nonetheless by that time.

As with rewinding the clock,the last example is to attempt to shackle a future government with an outdated piece of fractious legislation that will simply be dismissed by a new Tory government with a decent working majority.

That scenario is down to CORBYN's Liberal tactic, of sitting on the fence, then, when under pressure by the 'BLAIRITE's' within his 'remain' party, he scrapes himself off the fence, only to fall flat on his face into the 'remain' camp,then, into political oblivion for himself & the party that he 'leads'.


In simply don't recognise this interpretation.
The EU offered a backstop in the Irish sea and Theresa May negotiated a whole UK backstop to appease the DUP. Boris reverted back to the original offer and has left Northern Ireland in the customs Union.

The 2016 referendum to me is history, all be it interesting history. The people were asked if they wanted to leave and the government said it would implement their decision. Many read this as giving people the power but I see the opposite, it removed any further say on the matter as politicians could call on the 'will of the people' as their mandate. They could claim the need to nuke mainland Europe as being the only way to properly leave and you nor I could question because we had ticked a box saying it was for them to decide on our behalf.

So into brexit itself. I am in favour of the proposal by brexiteer Richard North.
http://www.eureferendum.com/Flexcit.aspx
He proposes a phased withdrawal, no need to leave customs Union or single market immediately. Leave the political body and work on each area over time. The idea that no deal solves problems or delivers what was promised is simply untrue, we would need to negotiate all the things we didn't before leaving regardless.

Labours policy is more in tune with this, remain in customs Union and single market, benefit from all the 100s of agreements already in place and regulatory alignment. Then once we have a customs agreement with the EU and other key trading partners, look to move away should we wish.

Will BoJo get a big majority? Maybe but I doubt it. They will lose seats in Scotland and to Lib Dems, then it becomes a trade off between labour and Tories with the brexit party being the fly in the ointment that could undermine it.

I'm not in favour of a second referendum but if I was the labour party and looking for support to stop a Tory version of brexit then I can see exactly why they would be in favour of it.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043771
BeesKnee5 wrote:In simply don't recognise this interpretation.
The EU offered a backstop in the Irish sea and Theresa May negotiated a whole UK backstop to appease the DUP. Boris reverted back to the original offer and has left Northern Ireland in the customs Union.

The 2016 referendum to me is history, all be it interesting history. The people were asked if they wanted to leave and the government said it would implement their decision. Many read this as giving people the power but I see the opposite, it removed any further say on the matter as politicians could call on the 'will of the people' as their mandate. They could claim the need to nuke mainland Europe as being the only way to properly leave and you nor I could question because we had ticked a box saying it was for them to decide on our behalf.

So into brexit itself. I am in favour of the proposal by brexiteer Richard North.
http://www.eureferendum.com/Flexcit.aspx
He proposes a phased withdrawal, no need to leave customs Union or single market immediately. Leave the political body and work on each area over time. The idea that no deal solves problems or delivers what was promised is simply untrue, we would need to negotiate all the things we didn't before leaving regardless.

Labours policy is more in tune with this, remain in customs Union and single market, benefit from all the 100s of agreements already in place and regulatory alignment. Then once we have a customs agreement with the EU and other key trading partners, look to move away should we wish.

Will BoJo get a big majority? Maybe but I doubt it. They will lose seats in Scotland and to Lib Dems, then it becomes a trade off between labour and Tories with the brexit party being the fly in the ointment that could undermine it.

I'm not in favour of a second referendum but if I was the labour party and looking for support to stop a Tory version of brexit then I can see exactly why they would be in favour of it.


The 2016 referendum is not history, it has yet to be fully implented, as agreed-not-by the government, but by the Conservative & Labour Party, as laid out in their pre-election manifesto's.

That has only, as yet, resulted in the setting into law, the A50 Act of parliament following notification to the E.U.

The referendum question was exactly identical to the 1975 referendum, for which the people decided to 'Remain' & for which the people who then voted 'Leave', accepted that democratic result without question or protest.

It doesn't matter what your opinion on 'giving power to the people' is, the facts are that the people had the power to decide their future & they duly did so.

That(1975)referendum, like 2016, simply required the people to decide what they wanted the elected government to do, which they decided, was to take us out of europe & strictly speaking meant out of 'political union' with europe.
The referendum was not about any 'deal', 'no deal', crash out', staying in the 'single market', 'Customs Union', or whatever, it meant that we had to leave, settle up on our liabilities, our long term commitments in an orderly fashion as prescribed under A50.

There cannot be a 'phased' withdrawal from either the CU or SM, we have to leave in the entirety on 31 October.

There were two 'alternative' ideas not followed upon, the 'Associate' proposed by the Lib MEP, Guy VERHOFSTADT-a non-runner, also, a UKRAINE + deal, which is a much more interesting and 'acceptable' choice.

We have 'negotiated' everything necessary to conclude a W.A, only passing & ratifying is necessary.Although, I accept that 'minor' changes may be agreed.

The 'problem' with Labour's position is, there is no difference, save cosmetic,meaning that it is not Brexit, in effect,it's keeping us in europe, totally unacceptable.
Staying in the SM, CU, regulatory alignment, free movement, is staying in the E.U, all Labour want to do, is to then bring in a referendum whilst the Tories are in power, to keep us in europe, in order that Labour does not reveal it's political cowardice, by having to include those options in it's manifesto at the next election & it can thus(so it believes-wrongly)that it can avoid defeat in that election.
Last edited by Nonsense on 20 Oct 2019 22:14, edited 1 time in total.
#15043774
Nonsense wrote:
The 2016 referendum is not history, it has yet to be fully implented, as agreed-not-by the government, but by the Conservative & Labour Party, as laid out in their pre-election manifesto's.

That has only, as yet, resulted in the setting into law, the A50 Act of parliament following notification to the E.U.

The referendum question was exactly identical to the 1975 referendum, for which the people decided to 'Remain' & for which the people who then voted 'Leave', accepted that democratic result without question or protest.

It doesn't matter what your opinion on 'giving power to the people' is, the facts are that the people had the power to decide their future & they duly did so.

That(1975)referendum, like 2016, simply required the people to decide what they wanted the elected government to do, which they decided, was to take us out of europe & strictly speaking meant out of 'political union' with europe.
The referendum was not about any 'deal', 'no deal', crash out', staying in the 'single market', 'Customs Union', or whatever, it meant that we had to leave, settle up on our liabilities, our long term commitments in an orderly fashion as prescribed under A50.

There cannot be a 'phased' withdrawal from either the CU or SM, we have to leave in the entirety on 31 October.

There were two 'alternative' ideas not followed upon, the 'Associate' proposed by the Lib MEP, Guy VERHOFSTADT-a non-runner, also, a UKRAINE + deal, which is a much more interesting and acceptable choice.

We have 'negotiated' everything necessary to conclude a W.A, only passing & ratifying is necessary.Although, I accept that 'minor' changes may be agreed.

The 'problem' with Labour's position is, there is no difference, save cosmetic,meaning that it is not Brexit, in effect,it's keeping us in europe, totally unacceptable.
Staying in the SM, CU, regulatory alignment, free movement, is staying in the E.U, all Labour want to do, is to then bring in a referendum whilst the Tories are in power, to keep us in europe, in order that Labour does not reveal it's political cowardice, by having to include those options in it's manifesto at the next election & it can thus(so it believes-wrongly)that it can avoid defeat in that election.


Referendum happened and is gone.
The implementation is in the hands of politicians, just as they promised it would be, I don't recall them giving us a timeframe beyond Cameron saying he would trigger A50 immediately and then running away.. The power to decide your future was fictitious, it was the granting of power to politicians to decide our future using 'the will of the people as an excuse.

That's why shouting 'that's not my brexit' is meaningless, once handed over the say on what brexit looks like is out of our hands.

So the rest of your whine about politicians agreeing for a brexit you don't agree with means very little. Turkey, Switzerland and Norway aren't in the EU yet have some or all the things you mention so clearly arguing we must leave all of them is a personal opinion.

The WAB is just the start and the political declaration is meaningless. Boris has thrown soft brexiteers and unionists under the bus, I wouldn't be confident that the ERG aren't next.

I see no benefit to leaving the customs Union before we have concluded future trading relations with the EU and all the other countries that we have trade agreements through the EU. I also see little benefit to leaving the single market until we have our own framework of standards that differ and have agreed mutual recognition.

However, like you my desires on this are meaningless and have no weight. I do not want a second referendum but there is nothing undemocratic about offering the people a say, if it truly is the will of the people then you have nothing to worry about and we will still leave once there is a government that can command the house.
#15043778
BeesKnee5 wrote:Referendum happened and is gone.
The implementation is in the hands of politicians, just as they promised it would be, I don't recall them giving us a timeframe beyond Cameron saying he would trigger A50 immediately and then running away.. The power to decide your future was fictitious, it was the granting of power to politicians to decide our future using 'the will of the people as an excuse.

That's why shouting 'that's not my brexit' is meaningless, once handed over the say on what brexit looks like is out of our hands.

So the rest of your whine about politicians agreeing for a brexit you don't agree with means very little. Turkey, Switzerland and Norway aren't in the EU yet have some or all the things you mention so clearly arguing we must leave all of them is a personal opinion.

The WAB is just the start and the political declaration is meaningless. Boris has thrown soft brexiteers and unionists under the bus, I wouldn't be confident that the ERG aren't next.

I see no benefit to leaving the customs Union before we have concluded future trading relations with the EU and all the other countries that we have trade agreements through the EU. I also see little benefit to leaving the single market until we have our own framework of standards that differ and have agreed mutual recognition.

However, like you my desires on this are meaningless and have no weight. I do not want a second referendum but there is nothing undemocratic about offering the people a say, if it truly is the will of the people then you have nothing to worry about and we will still leave once there is a government that can command the house.



First of all, delaying our exit from the E.U after 3 years plus, is not implementing leave, it's denying it, until it actually happens.

The default timeline is 2 years from notification of A50.

The power to decide our future was real, it was confirmed as such by the A50 Act of Parliament.

I don't 'shout' as you put it, the referendum instructed(read-ordered)the government, to take us out of the E.U, it's not a question of 'whining' about, which is what remainers do, it's only about implementing it.

Just as Theresa MAY had 'redlines', so too does the E.U, here is Martin Schulz expressing those redlines, "On free movement, I see a clear majority in the European Parliament for insisting that the fundamental freedoms are inseparable;
i.e. no freedom of movement for goods, capital and services, without free movement of persons.”

Additionally, Michel BARNIER has stated that we will not be allowed to stay in the SM either.

Therein lies the E.U redlines, for which Labour are intent on parking the U.K right back on the E.U's lawn, because they want to remain in the E.U & are not prepared to lose the aforementioned lines.

BoJo has not thrown anyone under the bus, in fact, the B.O.E, IMF has declared that BoJo's deal is good for the economy, the E.U would never agree any deal that infringed on the N.I peace agreement, so you are innacurate on that point, as well as others.

The 'house' cannot stop the clock, legally, we leave on 31 October, that is the default A50 date of leaving, should the E.U not grant another extension, though I suspect that they may offer one until February, but, for which BoJo can refuse to negotiate on & the E.U cannot impose one on a member state unilaterally.

The E.U can only negotiate through the government, not through the Westminster or Scottish parliaments, everything has to come through BoJo, by saying that he will not negotiate another extension, it follows that he doesn't have to explain anything to parliament on that particular issue,unless it suits him.

Parliament is seeking to overturn the adage, that 'parliament must have it's say, but government will have it's way'.

Now, having a minority in the Commons, should result in a 'no confidence' motion, that it hasn't happened, is not the governments fault,but, that operating as a mutinous rabble, by trying to run the country through a parliament, as opposed to by government, is a constitutional outrage that will come back & bite all of the opposition MP's.
By Sivad
#15043780
Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs


DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.

The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds.

The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.

The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... hiefs.html
User avatar
By Kirillov
#15043814
And that's newsworthy because...? The Americans were happy to promote western European unity during the Cold War, since a united Western Europe was better strategically speaking for countering the Warsaw Pact. It's well known and not controversial.
By Hindsite
#15043820
Correct me if I am wrong, but as an American without full knowledge of the EU-BREXIT, it was my understanding that the British public voted to leave the EU over a year ago. So apparently, the people did not vote on when and how to exit. Apparently, when and how to exit has been left to the Parliament. So if there is no method or time limit to exit, how can the people be sure that their will ever be an EU-BREXIT?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15043821
Hindsite wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but as an American without full knowledge of the EU-BREXIT, it was my understanding that the British public voted to leave the EU over a year ago. So apparently, the people did not vote on when and how to exit. Apparently, when and how to exit has been left to the Parliament. So if there is no method or time limit to exit, how can the people be sure that their will ever be an EU-BREXIT?

They can't. Lol.
By Rich
#15043823
Since the moment the Brexit result came in, the question has been which will happen first, Brexit or Intel releasing a 10nm desktop CPU. Its still an open question.
User avatar
By Beren
#15043829
After "take back control" and "get Brexit done" I wonder whether what three-word-four-syllable slogan will define British politics next. Any suggestions perhaps?
By Atlantis
#15043831
Beren wrote:After "take back control" and "get Brexit done" I wonder whether what three-word-four-syllable slogan will define British politics next. Any suggestions perhaps?


How about: "lock him up!"
User avatar
By Beren
#15043832
Atlantis wrote:How about: "lock him up!"

It's just three syllables, unfortunately. Maybe that's the difference between American and British populism. The first one is three-syllable while the latter one is four-syllable.
User avatar
By Kirillov
#15043833
Beren wrote:After "take back control" and "get Brexit done" I wonder whether what three-word-four-syllable slogan will define British politics next. Any suggestions perhaps?


Probably just the sound of heart monitor flatlining.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043835
Sivad wrote:Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs


DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.

The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds.

The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.

The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... hiefs.html



I do not doubt your statement regarding American interference in european affairs,I have read many American diplomatic & 'sigint' files regarding T. BLair AKA,'T. BLIAR' on significant events during his time in office.

But, the real slam-dunk is the absolute hypocrisy surrounding the Democratic campaign against President TRUMP in the American elections with respect to RUSSIA, when they themselves have a far greater systemic penetration of european - British inteligence data than they would dare admit to.
User avatar
By Beren
#15043836
Nonsense wrote:I am not 'British', I am English. 8)

I was right you don't sound British then.

What would be your three-word-four-syllable slogan defining British politics after Brexit is done?

Name of the game: Let's be Dominic Cummings!

Image
By Rich
#15043837
Another Brexocrit lie. "Get Brexit done." The only way to get Brexit done and move on is to revoke. Anyone who suggests that we can just pass the deal and then move our attention on to other things is either a liar, a cretin or an ignoramus.

I don't know how to say thank you in Dothraki
There is no word for thank you in Dothraki

What ever you think of Zionism, I recommend them as an object of study. Jewish supremacists have mastered the art of ingratitude. The Jewish supremacist never says thank you for the immense amount we have done for Israel since the Balfour declaration. No he only ever complains and insults and abuses us that we have not done even more to help the chosen people. You see its vital that Zionist always betray themselves as the victims of injustice rather what they truly are the benefactors of huge privilege, the benefactors of injustice. I think the Brexocrites have studied the Zionist method. Soft Remainers and even soft Leavers just don't seem to get this. They seem to imagine that if they only do just a little bit more for Brexocrit narcissists, the Brexocrites will be grateful to them.

The only reason we haven't left yet is because Brexocrites voted down May's deal. The only reason so many Remainers and soft Leavers stood against it was because the Brexocrites denounced it. The Brexitocrites take us for idiots. They demand that Remainers vote through an awful deal, which they can then denounce as a betrayal. Note how Reese-Mogg and Liesohn voted against May's deal and then on the third division voted for the very thing they had denounced as a treacherous betrayal, a vassal Britain which was worse than Remaining.

The country has spent three and half years respecting the referendum result. Calls for a second referendum are a form of respect for the result of the first. No vote in history has been given such devotion. When Obama was elected in 2008, how long did Conservatives spend respecting the result of the vote? How long before they set about delegitimising Obama and disrespecting his campaign. Trump didn't wait to lose before he started delegitimising and disrespecting the expected Clinton victory. The same with Farage, before the result was in, he was already delegitimising and disrespecting the expected Reamain victory.

When I say I've treated the Leave 51.9 to 48.1 result with total and utter contempt, I'm only doing what Farage would have done if the result has been reversed. My message to the soft Remainers and soft Leavers is give up on this fantasy that the Brexocrites will ever be happy.
User avatar
By Beren
#15043839
Rich wrote:The Brexitocrites take us for idiots.

Well, they certainly appear to beat you with big blatant idiotic lies, spectacular duplicity and flip-flops, and cheap and primitive, although well-timed, three-word-four-syllable slogans.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043840
Hindsite wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but as an American without full knowledge of the EU-BREXIT, it was my understanding that the British public voted to leave the EU over a year ago. So apparently, the people did not vote on when and how to exit. Apparently, when and how to exit has been left to the Parliament. So if there is no method or time limit to exit, how can the people be sure that their will ever be an EU-BREXIT?


You are correct in that the eligible voters of the U.K,decided by a simple majority, to Leave the European Union on 23 June 2016.

Here is a timeline of notable events since 2013.


January 2013
CAMERON promises an 'in-out' referendum to, 'create a new settlement for the U.K in europe'.

14 April 2015
CAMERON launches the Conservative election Manifesto, pledging, "a real change in our relationship with the European Union".
"The party also declared that it would hold an 'in-out' referendum before the end of 2017".
26 February 2016
Date of referendum announced(23 June 2016).

The government also announced a policy pamphlet titled, 'The best of both worlds' the UK's 'special' status in a reformed E.U.
23 June 2016 Referendum held, result- 'OUT' 51.9%, 'IN' 48.1%.
CAMERON-announced resignation for the following day.

13 July 2016
Theresa MAY elected as new Prime Minister by the Conservative Party & assumes office.

03 November 2016

Gina MILLER wins High Court judgement on the right of the government to implement Brexit without approval by parliament.

29 March 2017
Theresa MAY(PM) triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, enabling a two-year period ending 29 March 2019 to 'Leave' the E.U.
E.U leaders adopt guidelines for negotiations with the U.K & the government releases, Northern Ireland & Ireland Position Paper.

08 June 2017
General Election called by Theresa MAY results in a hung parliament, in which MAY used taxpayers money to 'bribe' the DUP into supporting her government's weak position in parliament.

19 June 2017
First round of negotiations between E.U & U.K on leaving the E.U.(David DAVIES & Mr BARNIER).

28 February 2018

E.U publishes a draft document titled, 'Withdrawal Agreement between the European Union & the United Kingdom'.
The draft proposed that Northern Ireland would act as a 'Customs Territory' of the E.U.


(Labour are about to resurrect that ^ proposal in parliament this week, the effects, of which, would be to unravel the deal in respect of the Irish situation & has already been rejected 3 times in parliament).

MAY responded that, " No prime minister could ever agree with it & that such a move would, "undermine" the U.K 'common market' & threaten the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.

Note: This did not bother Edward HEATH in 1972 when the U.K sacrificed sovereignty when we joined the EEC.

29 March 2018

Theresa MAY visits U.K countries, promising "that only such a Brexit deal will be delivered which works for every community & also protects the integrity of the nation".

06 July 2018
The Cabinet meets at Chequors to agree a collective position on future negotiations on Brexit, but there were disagreements on the future relationship.
09 July
Boris JOHNSON & David DAVIS resign from the Cabinet.
Dominic RAAB was appointed the new 'Brexit' Secretary.
23 October 2018
RAAB issues 'no-deal' notices giving technical preparations on that position.

19-20 September 2018
E.U leaders at a summit in Salzburg voice strong opposition to MAY's proposals on her post-Brexit E.U-UK relationship, she responds by stating she will walk away from the discussions if no deal was agreed.

20 October 2018
'People's March' in London on having a referendum on the final terms of the deal.
14 November 2018

Negotiations were held to establish the terms(contract) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the U.K to leave on 29 March 2019.
145 November 2018

Dominic RAAB,(Brexit Secretary), Esther McVey (work & pensions minister) & under-secretary, Suella BRAVERMAN resign from the Cabinet on WA disagreements.
22 November 2018

Steps of 10 Downing St, Theresa MAY declares that a 'deal' is close, "The British people want this to be settled.
They want a good deal that sets us on course for a brighter future.

That deal is within our grasp & I am determined to deliver it".

10 December 2018

Final vote on 'meaningful vote' pulled, which would have passed the WA.

"If we went ahead & held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant majority".

29 December 2018 The Seaborne Freight £13.8 Million contract fiasco flares up, seems like a 'shell' operator?
15 January 2019
'Meaningful Vote' held, resulting in defeat for the government, 432 against, 202 in favour.
12 March 2019 Second 'Meaningful Vote' takes place, government defeat, 391 against, 242 for.

13-14 March 2019
MP's vote to rule out 'no-deal' & instruct the government to request an extension to A50 from the E.U.
16 March 2019
Nigel FARAGE organizes a march to London from Sunderland to exit the E.U.
21 March 2019
E.U offer a 'short' extension to deadline of 22 May 20149, if MAY can get her Brexit deal passed(it wasn't passed), or 12 April 2019( if not), TUC-CBI warn of 'national emergency' over Brexit.

23 March 2019
'Put it to the people' march takes place in London.
27 March 2019

MAY offers to resign(if her WA is accepted by parliament), but doesn't give a date.
"I know there is a desire for a new approach,and new leadership in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations & I won't stand in the way of that"
29 March 2019 'Brexit Day'

Theresa MAY's WA is rejected a third time by parliament by 344 votes - 286.
'Brexit Day' passes & direct democracy too.

E.U discusses a summit on 10 April 2019,to consider it's next moves.

02 April 2019
'Alternatives' dismissed in 'indicative' voting.
Those rejected were, a 'customs union', 'common market 2' & a 'second referendum'.

05 April 2019
Theresa MAY request a 'further extension' from the E.U.
Yvette COOPER's Bill to force the government to seek a further extension passes by one vote, 313-312.

E.U agree further, longer extension until 31 October 2019, if the WA is passed(it wasn't passed), U.K must now take part in E.U elections if WA is not agreed by MAY.

The inmates have taken over the Westminster lunatic asylum & the country is running 'normally'.


09 September 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (c. 26)
- AKA, the 'BENN Act'- 'No Deal' - letter of extension to E.U, in event of, to be submitted by Boris Johnson, P.M.

The rest is history(or tragic comedy)in the making.

As you may gather, the whole excercise has been truly farcical,but also corrosive to our democracy & reputation across the global community.

The 'architects' of this sorry state of affairs, is Theresa MAY,CORBYN,BENN,LETWIN,SNP,DUP,MEDIA -expressly the BBC & a politically ignorant electorate.

However, the 'solution' is simple, the E.U must refuse to grant any more extensions.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043841
Rich wrote:Another Brexocrit lie. "Get Brexit done." The only way to get Brexit done and move on is to revoke. Anyone who suggests that we can just pass the deal and then move our attention on to other things is either a liar, a cretin or an ignoramus.


What ever you think of Zionism, I recommend them as an object of study. Jewish supremacists have mastered the art of ingratitude. The Jewish supremacist never says thank you for the immense amount we have done for Israel since the Balfour declaration. No he only ever complains and insults and abuses us that we have not done even more to help the chosen people. You see its vital that Zionist always betray themselves as the victims of injustice rather what they truly are the benefactors of huge privilege, the benefactors of injustice. I think the Brexocrites have studied the Zionist method. Soft Remainers and even soft Leavers just don't seem to get this. They seem to imagine that if they only do just a little bit more for Brexocrit narcissists, the Brexocrites will be grateful to them.

The only reason we haven't left yet is because Brexocrites voted down May's deal. The only reason so many Remainers and soft Leavers stood against it was because the Brexocrites denounced it. The Brexitocrites take us for idiots. They demand that Remainers vote through an awful deal, which they can then denounce as a betrayal. Note how Reese-Mogg and Liesohn voted against May's deal and then on the third division voted for the very thing they had denounced as a treacherous betrayal, a vassal Britain which was worse than Remaining.

The country has spent three and half years respecting the referendum result. Calls for a second referendum are a form of respect for the result of the first. No vote in history has been given such devotion. When Obama was elected in 2008, how long did Conservatives spend respecting the result of the vote? How long before they set about delegitimising Obama and disrespecting his campaign. Trump didn't wait to lose before he started delegitimising and disrespecting the expected Clinton victory. The same with Farage, before the result was in, he was already delegitimising and disrespecting the expected Reamain victory.

When I say I've treated the Leave 51.9 to 48.1 result with total and utter contempt, I'm only doing what Farage would have done if the result has been reversed. My message to the soft Remainers and soft Leavers is give up on this fantasy that the Brexocrites will ever be happy.



That is a 'cretinous' & 'ignorant' statement if ever there was one.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043842
Beren wrote:Well, they certainly appear to beat you with big blatant idiotic lies, spectacular duplicity and flip-flops, and cheap and primitive, although well-timed, three-word-four-syllable slogans.



I'm sure that Rich would agree with you, a case of, 'imitation is a sincere form of flattery', no doubt. :lol: :lol:
  • 1
  • 287
  • 288
  • 289
  • 290
  • 291
  • 305
“Iceworm”

We could have built a ground based launcher at an[…]

Opinion polls like the one cited above are a wa[…]

EU-BREXIT

The paradox of politics is rather like the parado[…]

The clue is that free market capitalism in the pa[…]