Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[nil_desperandum]

The number of remainers on here that complained Boris was PM by default, he hadn't been chosen by the country, are now espousing the same manoeuvre to put Clarke and Harman in charge. Its hilarious. You then say the unelected duo should make a deal with the EU, in order to disenfranchise 17.4 million voters. AND that is going to unite a divided country.
Every subsequent poll shows we are split down the middle. How many MEPs did Brexit gain and even if we are split down the middle, why should the remain half prevail.

A few points but most importantly: How would Clarke and Harman (or anyone for that matter) disenfranchise 17.4 million voters by taking us out of the EU with a deal? Leaving the EU is what they voted for. Leading up to the referendum just about everyone said we would get a deal, and even currently Johnson says he wants a deal.
Even on this thread leavers are saying that we have to make the "threat" of no deal in order to get a deal, so how can you claim that getting a deal and leaving the EU is anything other than what the 17.4 voted for?
{I think you've got carried away and have confused leaving with revoking.}
The only possible way to work towards uniting the country is to leave with a deal - as was always promised by the "leave"campign.

Secondly: Johnson doesn't have a working majority in the Commons, but at the moment is trying to usurp power. Clarke and Harman are just as much elected as Johnson is, and so it's odd that you chose to describe them as "unelected". If they led a government that broadly represented the Parliamentary arithmetic, then it would be far more democratic than anything in recent times. (Far more democratic in fact than having a small group of odd Irish extremists holding the govt. to ransom as was the case with May after 2017 GE)
Having a Conservative PM would reflect that they have the most seats, and the rest of the cabinet would, (as in wartime coalitions) represent a wide spectrum of views.

[BennyD]

I have to disagree on a few things; we want to leave with a deal but removing no deal reduces the possibility of leaving with a good deal. I really want a multilateral deal but, personally, I'd be content to leave without one because we did vote to leave.

Remain or leave is always going to be divisory, as is voting Conservative or Labour (voting Liberal is merely trying to make a point at dinner parties).

Johnson is NOT usurping power, he is complying with democratic protocol and the Queen agreed by proroging Parliament. It was her decision, not his.

All the rest of what you put was sore loser waffle. Please send me your address so on return of post, I can send you 10p so you can phone someone who gives a sh!t.

[nil_desperandum]

I have to disagree on a few things; we want to leave with a deal but removing no deal reduces the possibility of leaving with a good deal. I really want a multilateral deal but, personally, I'd be content to leave without one because we did vote to leave.

Remain or leave is always going to be divisory, as is voting Conservative or Labour (voting Liberal is merely trying to make a point at dinner parties).

Johnson is NOT usurping power, he is complying with democratic protocol and the Queen agreed by proroging Parliament. It was her decision, not his.

All the rest of what you put was sore loser waffle. Please send me your address so on return of post, I can send you 10p so you can phone someone who gives a sh!t.

Good to see that good natured, intelligent reasoned debate is still alive in our democracy.

[mkmel]

And the Queen agreed by proroging Parliament. It was her decision, not his.

[BennyD]

Good to see that good natured, intelligent reasoned debate is still alive in our democracy.

What was it I posted that you so disagreed with? The reference to sore loser perhaps? Please do tell.

[dsr]

And the Queen agreed by proroging Parliament. It was her decision, not his.

The Queen basically had no choice. She is a constitutional monarch, not a ruling monarch, and so she has to act in accordance with the constitution. I don't know when the last time was that a monarch refused to prorogue Parliament when asked to by the PM, but I suspect it's never. William IV had to do it the other way round in 1831 - come down to prorogue Parliament personally after the Reform Bill was defeated.

[mkmel]

Exactly!

Hence my

[Colburn_Claret]

A few points but most importantly: How would Clarke and Harman (or anyone for that matter) disenfranchise 17.4 million voters by taking us out of the EU with a deal? Leaving the EU is what they voted for. Leading up to the referendum just about everyone said we would get a deal, and even currently Johnson says he wants a deal.
Even on this thread leavers are saying that we have to make the "threat" of no deal in order to get a deal, so how can you claim that getting a deal and leaving the EU is anything other than what the 17.4 voted for?
{I think you've got carried away and have confused leaving with revoking.}
The only possible way to work towards uniting the country is to leave with a deal - as was always promised by the "leave"campign.

Secondly: Johnson doesn't have a working majority in the Commons, but at the moment is trying to usurp power. Clarke and Harman are just as much elected as Johnson is, and so it's odd that you chose to describe them as "unelected". If they led a government that broadly represented the Parliamentary arithmetic, then it would be far more democratic than anything in recent times. (Far more democratic in fact than having a small group of odd Irish extremists holding the govt. to ransom as was the case with May after 2017 GE)
Having a Conservative PM would reflect that they have the most seats, and the rest of the cabinet would, (as in wartime coalitions) represent a wide spectrum of views.

Any deal made by 2 remainers will not satisfy those who voted leave because your and their view of leaving, isnt leaving. If you really want a deal, support Boris get Clarke and Harman to support Boris, and he can get a deal. Only that deal which is what we want and voted for wouldnt satisfy you or them. I'll say yet again, you dont want a deal, they dont want a deal, you all want to remain, and the only deal they would seek, that would satisfy you, would be so weak and watered down that we just remain on different terms.
As for the Parliamentary arithmetic, it doesn't represent the public arithmetic. I'm sick of watching clips on FB, of lying bloody politicians on the Hustings of the last GE all stating that we were leaving. All claiming that Brexit means Brexit. All claiming that there was no way that they wouldnt implement the referendum.
Political arithmetic ffs.
A war time cabinet.
I dont know how you sleep at night, do you move into the shelter at the bottom of the garden. We just want leave the EU that's all

[BennyD]

The Queen basically had no choice. She is a constitutional monarch, not a ruling monarch, and so she has to act in accordance with the constitution. I don't know when the last time was that a monarch refused to prorogue Parliament when asked to by the PM, but I suspect it's never. William IV had to do it the other way round in 1831 - come down to prorogue Parliament personally after the Reform Bill was defeated.

Just because you know how to Google doesnt mean you know what the fuckis going on. If she was a remainer she could have refused and made a sovereign decision which then, of course, becomes politcal precedent. She didn't , she agreed which makes her one of the enligjtened. Game Over.

[RingoMcCartney]

Remoaners-

"Johnson suspending democracy, means we wont be able to carry on suspending democracy, like we have done for the last 3 years"

[dsr]

And one advantage of leaving without a deal is that it will stop all the infighting. The Remain MPs will know that we have left and will be gutted. Who knows what they will do. But most of the MPs in the House claim that they want us to leave. So when we leave (as is likely) without a deal, the vast majority of the MPs will be glad we are out, and the vast majority of MPs will be sorry that we haven't got a deal, and so all those MPs on all sides of the House will be united in wanting to make the best deal possible.

Or perhaps they won't.

[RingoMcCartney]

This is what , gob on a stick, Europhile, Terry Christian tweeted-

“No Deal brexit will cause shortage of flu vaccine. Should have 2 queues at Doctors one for brexit one for remain.

“Brexit queue gets told they dont (sic) need vaccines as they were put together by experts they shpuld (sic) just believe harder.

Only remains get vaccinated. It’s win win.”

That's how low Remoaners are willing to go.

Mind you it's not that long ago, that this message boards very own Lancaster Claret , was shamelessly proclaiming that, the age of the average brexiteer meant that if we had a 2nd Peoples Vote, many who voted Leave will have died in the interim.

Desperate and vulgar herd mentality from sore loser, remoaners.

Par for the course I guess!

[martin_p]

And one advantage of leaving without a deal is that it will stop all the infighting. The Remain MPs will know that we have left and will be gutted. Who knows what they will do. But most of the MPs in the House claim that they want us to leave. So when we leave (as is likely) without a deal, the vast majority of the MPs will be glad we are out, and the vast majority of MPs will be sorry that we haven't got a deal, and so all those MPs on all sides of the House will be united in wanting to make the best deal possible.

Or perhaps they won't.

Then all we’ll need to do after we’ve left is stop the remoaners trying to stop no deal because it’s the threat of no deal that will get us a good deal. Oh hang on...... what’s negotiation plan b?

[nil_desperandum]

Any deal made by 2 remainers will not satisfy those who voted leave because your and their view of leaving, isnt leaving. If you really want a deal, support Boris get Clarke and Harman to support Boris, and he can get a deal. Only that deal which is what we want and voted for wouldnt satisfy you or them. I'll say yet again, you dont want a deal, they dont want a deal, you all want to remain, and the only deal they would seek, that would satisfy you, would be so weak and watered down that we just remain on different terms.
As for the Parliamentary arithmetic, it doesn't represent the public arithmetic. I'm sick of watching clips on FB, of lying bloody politicians on the Hustings of the last GE all stating that we were leaving. All claiming that Brexit means Brexit. All claiming that there was no way that they wouldnt implement the referendum.
Political arithmetic ffs.
A war time cabinet.
I dont know how you sleep at night, do you move into the shelter at the bottom of the garden. We just want leave the EU that's all

Why would the deal be negotiated by Clarke and Harman? (It wouldn't)
You clearly misunderstand the nature and make-up of a Government of National Unity.
It's a cross-party cabinet of the best talents, and to get the best deal you might have Gove as Brexit secretary, (in fact that would make a lot of sense, since he's a) conservative b) a leaver and c) wants a deal.) As an alternative it might be a team of experienced negotitors form the world of business.
To clarify: I've been consistent since summer of 2016 in saying that we must leave with a deal, [in fact the very one that Farage campaigned for (i.e. some variant on the Norway model)]. It's true that in more recent times I've also supported a People's vote, but only if the only alternative is no deal, and I think that a lot of people who voted remain share my consistent stance on this.
I'm not certain what you mean in the last few lines.
I referred to the Parliamentary arithmetic, not the "political" arithmetic, (I don't know what you actually mean by that term). By Parliamentary arithmetic I'm referring to an executive (Cabinet) that reflects the proportion of elected MPs in the house. What's undemocratic about that?

Wartime cabinet? Not sure why you question that. It's a simple fact that when we had governments of National Unity in the past they happened to be in wartime. You can check if you want. This potential National govt would be a peacetime coalition but the principal of including the best talents of all the parties, (and maybe some non-politicians), who would be bound by collective responsibility would be the same. Hence whatever deal Gove or whoever came back with they would all have to agree to, or resign).
As to how I sleep,, I'm not sure of the relevance of that, since I'm very comfortable with what I post, and it's an honest appraisal even if you happen to disagree with it.
I generally sleep very well and with a clear conscience, although reflecting on Ben Mee and their 2nd goal today could give me sleepless night.

[RingoMcCartney]

Why would the deal be negotiated by Clarke and Harman? (It wouldn't)
You clearly misunderstand the nature and make-up of a Government of National Unity.
It's a cross-party cabinet of the best talents, and to get the best deal you might have Gove as Brexit secretary, (in fact that would make a lot of sense, since he's a) conservative b) a leaver and c) wants a deal.) As an alternative it might be a team of experienced negotitors form the world of business.
To clarify: I've been consistent since summer of 2016 in saying that we must leave with a deal, [in fact the very one that Farage campaigned for (i.e. some variant on the Norway model)]. It's true that in more recent times I've also supported a People's vote, but only if the only alternative is no deal, and I think that a lot of people who voted remain share my consistent stance on this.
I'm not certain what you mean in the last few lines.
I referred to the Parliamentary arithmetic, not the "political" arithmetic, (I don't know what you actually mean by that term). By Parliamentary arithmetic I'm referring to an executive (Cabinet) that reflects the proportion of elected MPs in the house. What's undemocratic about that?

Wartime cabinet? Not sure why you question that. It's a simple fact that when we had governments of National Unity in the past they happened to be in wartime. You can check if you want. This potential National govt would be a peacetime coalition but the principal of including the best talents of all the parties, (and maybe some non-politicians), who would be bound by collective responsibility would be the same. Hence whatever deal Gove or whoever came back with they would all have to agree to, or resign).
As to how I sleep,, I'm not sure of the relevance of that, since I'm very comfortable with what I post, and it's an honest appraisal even if you happen to disagree with it.
I generally sleep very well and with a clear conscience, although reflecting on Ben Mee and their 2nd goal today could give me sleepless night.

Remoaners for the last 3 years-

"if the prime minister had actually taken on board the views of the remainers and included us in the negotiations. We could have had a far better outcome to brexit. Instead she chose to totally ignore the view of the 48%"

Remoaners august 2019 -

" we need a Peoples Parliament in a church. We will set up a Government of "National Unity" That just happens not to include anybody that voted Leave and will completely ignore the views of the 52%!

Pure unadulterated hypocrisy and comedy gold to boot!

[dsr]

The point of a "government of national unity" is to make sure that the 48% who voted Remain get their way and the 52% who voted Leave do not. This works because they have invented a new definition of "unity".

[nil_desperandum]

Just because you know how to Google doesnt mean you know what the fuckis going on. If she was a remainer she could have refused and made a sovereign decision which then, of course, becomes politcal precedent. She didn't , she agreed which makes her one of the enligjtened. Game Over.

She actually couldn't do anything other than what she did. It's how her role is defined. If she ever tried to interfere in politics then we'd be a very short step away from becoming a Republic.
Without any question, irrespective of any view she might hold, she has to accede to any request from her Prime Minister. That's her constitutional role.

[martin_p]

Remoaners for the last 3 years-

"if the prime minister had actually taken on board the views of the remainers and included us in the negotiations. We could have had a far better outcome to brexit. Instead she chose to totally ignore the view of the 48%"

Remoaners august 2019 -

" we need a Peoples Parliament in a church. We will set up a Government of "National Unity" That just happens not to include anybody that voted Leave and will completely ignore the views of the 52%!

Pure unadulterated hypocrisy and comedy gold to boot!

In response to a post that actually names Michael Gove in a government of National Unity. Wrong again Wrongo!

[RingoMcCartney]

In response to a post that actually names Michael Gove in a government of National Unity. Wrong again Wrongo!

Remoaners- " brexit is divisive and causing uncertainty"

Solution?

Remoaners- "Lets force the PM to seek an extension and drag it out even further !"

You could not make it up!

[martin_p]

Remoaners- " brexit is divisive and causing uncertainty"

Solution?

Remoaners- "Lets force the PM to seek an extension and drag it out even further !"

You could not make it up!

You often do (see your post at 12.03am).

[nil_desperandum]

The point of a "government of national unity" is to make sure that the 48% who voted Remain get their way and the 52% who voted Leave do not. This works because they have invented a new definition of "unity".

The point of a govt of National unity is to deliver brexit and get the country moving again, something the Tories have failed to do in over 3 years, and something Johnson claims he wants to do, but is unlikely to achieve before his daft Oct 31st deadline.

[RingoMcCartney]

You often do (see your post at 12.03am).

Remoaners- democratic enough to talk down to anyone, till they agree with them.

I didn't make that up.

[martin_p]

Remoaners- democratic enough to talk down to anyone, till they agree with them.

I didn't make that up.

Got any more?

[RingoMcCartney]

Got any more?

I'll let you know next week.






(Page 1 of "How to Keep an Idiot in Suspense)

[nil_desperandum]

Remoaners for the last 3 years-

"if the prime minister had actually taken on board the views of the remainers and included us in the negotiations. We could have had a far better outcome to brexit. Instead she chose to totally ignore the view of the 48%"

Remoaners august 2019 -

" we need a Peoples Parliament in a church. We will set up a Government of "National Unity" That just happens not to include anybody that voted Leave and will completely ignore the views of the 52%!

Pure unadulterated hypocrisy and comedy gold to boot!

Seriously Ringo, I swear you either don't read people's posts properly or you're too stupid to understand them, and I'm certain it's NOT the second as you come across as a bright chap.
How can it be a govt of National Unity unless it accurately represents the 52% / 48% split in favour of leave?
That's the whole point of having a coalition that works for the people, it has to represent as accurately as possible the views of the entire population.
Johnson obviously couldn't be in, because he would just have been removed, but you wouldn't rule anyone else out, in fact there'd be quite a strong argument for inviting Farage to join it, because he now has a large fanbase. Problem is though that Farage wouldn't join in because he is no longer interested in a negotiated deal, and I doubt Corbyn would join because he'd be sulking at not being PM.

[martin_p]

I'll let you know next week.






(Page 1 of "How to Keep an Idiot in Suspense)

Keep going, it’s all top quality stuff.

[dsr]

The point of a govt of National unity is to deliver brexit and get the country moving again, something the Tories have failed to do in over 3 years, and something Johnson claims he wants to do, but is unlikely to achieve before his daft Oct 31st deadline.

They aren't proposing a "government of national unity" that would include Brexiters.

I realise that some people want this "Government of National Unity" because they think Parliament deserves the chance to get together and find common ground on what we want from Brexit.

What a shame they haven't had chance to try doing that over the last three years. We might have achieved something, if only they had been given the chance to have a good long discussion and agree on what to do.

The point of a government of national unity is twofold. One, if GNU actually happens, is to make sure Brexit doesn't happen on 31st October. The other, which might be served even if it this GNU comes into being, is to make sure that Boris Johnson doesn't get an improved deal of the EU.

Now, they can say all they want that this attempt to stop Brexit is actually an attempt to make Brexit happen. But they can also tell me that the sun shines at midnight and it won't rain till Christmas, and I wouldn't believe that either.

[martin_p]

They aren't proposing a "government of national unity" that would include Brexiters.

I realise that some people want this "Government of National Unity" because they think Parliament deserves the chance to get together and find common ground on what we want from Brexit.

What a shame they haven't had chance to try doing that over the last three years. We might have achieved something, if only they had been given the chance to have a good long discussion and agree on what to do.

The point of a government of national unity is twofold. One, if GNU actually happens, is to make sure Brexit doesn't happen on 31st October. The other, which might be served even if it this GNU comes into being, is to make sure that Boris Johnson doesn't get an improved deal of the EU.

Now, they can say all they want that this attempt to stop Brexit is actually an attempt to make Brexit happen. But they can also tell me that the sun shines at midnight and it won't rain till Christmas, and I wouldn't believe that either.

Both statements can be true if you look beyond your own backyard.

[nil_desperandum]

I realise that some people want this "Government of National Unity" because they think Parliament deserves the chance to get together and find common ground on what we want from Brexit.

What a shame they haven't had chance to try doing that over the last three years. We might have achieved something, if only they had been given the chance to have a good long discussion and agree on what to do.

And whose fault was that? It took May two and a half years to even consider speaking to the other parties, even though for much of that time she had a minority administration.

[aggi]

You dont have to live in London to recognise where the poorest areas are, which attracts the poorest people, who cant afford the majority of London. There are enough news stories on London, almost on a daily basis, on one news topic or another, to know that most rundown areas of London, are inhabited mostly by migrants. Not because they like living in squalor, but because it's all they can afford. I'm not saying it's right, but it's easier to keep affairs in order, to have migrants living in close proximity. I'm sure they find comfort in living with people who share some knowledge of their journey. The next thing you know you've got a ghetto.

Whichever way you want to look at it, they dont look at the EU with the same eyes as someone who's always lived here.

Ok, so you're just making assumptions and guessing.

[Colburn_Claret]

Ok, so you're just making assumptions and guessing.

No, it's not an assumption, I've never been to the Etihad, but I know City are great, because theres wall to wall coverage on the tv.
Over the last 30 years I've must have seen as much news stories on London, the good areas and the bad, to realise that the poorest areas are inhabited by mostly migrants or second generation immigrants. I dont think I need to live there for a year to prove my point, your just being pedantic, because although you know it's TRUE it doesn't suit remainers argument of why poor areas of London voted remain, whilst poor areas in the rest of the country voted leave.

[martin_p]

No, it's not an assumption, I've never been to the Etihad, but I know City are great, because theres wall to wall coverage on the tv.
Over the last 30 years I've must have seen as much news stories on London, the good areas and the bad, to realise that the poorest areas are inhabited by mostly migrants or second generation immigrants. I dont think I need to live there for a year to prove my point, your just being pedantic, because although you know it's TRUE it doesn't suit remainers argument of why poor areas of London voted remain, whilst poor areas in the rest of the country voted leave.

Which tv programme told you the rest of the country voted remain?

[Colburn_Claret]

Remoaners for the last 3 years-

"if the prime minister had actually taken on board the views of the remainers and included us in the negotiations. We could have had a far better outcome to brexit. Instead she chose to totally ignore the view of the 48%"

Remoaners august 2019 -

" we need a Peoples Parliament in a church. We will set up a Government of "National Unity" That just happens not to include anybody that voted Leave and will completely ignore the views of the 52%!

Pure unadulterated hypocrisy and comedy gold to boot!

Sadly Ringo I honestly believe he cant see the hypocrisy of his post.
He really believes that a government of unity heavily weighted by remainers, will fairly represent the public weighted by Leavers.

No one has explained the conundrum of how they want a deal, but arent prepared to let Boris seek a deal.
The conundrum of how the EU, who remainers keep saying wont change the WA will do a deal with them.
Maybe the government of national unity just plan to accept the WA they voted down 3 times.

Remainers, but especially the remainers in Parliament are just full of ********.

[martin_p]

Sadly Ringo I honestly believe he cant see the hypocrisy of his post.
He really believes that a government of unity heavily weighted by remainers, will fairly represent the public weighted by Leavers.

Sadly you haven’t read the post where he said the weighting should reflect the referendum result, but it doesn’t fit your narrative so you’ve no doubt ignored it.

[Colburn_Claret]

Which tv programme told you the rest of the country voted remain?

WTF
I reread it twice, and I still cant see where I said that. Please highlight it for me coz I'm just confused by your post.

[martin_p]

WTF
I reread it twice, and I still cant see where I said that. Please highlight it for me coz I'm just confused by your post.

Sorry meant leave not remain. You said the rest of the country voted leave, where did you get that from?

[nil_desperandum]

What was it I posted that you so disagreed with? The reference to sore loser perhaps? Please do tell.

I actually disagreed with all of your points, but that's got nothing to do with it.
The reason I questioned your ability to debate in a mature and reasoned manner was the following:

All the rest of what you put was sore loser waffle. Please send me your address so on return of post, I can send you 10p so you can phone someone who gives a sh!t.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of the whole sorry brexit saga is that it has legitimised nastiness, and citizens of the UK have lost their traditional values of tolerance and respect for one another's views.
We've moved from August to September now and this thread (alone) into its 7th month and 234th page, with little sign that many people want to compromise and move forward. (It is the only way this can be resolved)
I've always believed that politics should be about consensus and working together for a fairer and more just society, giving everyone, (particularly the young people) a better opportunity in life, looking after the most vulnerable, eradicating poverty and hunger on a global basis and advancing the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.
Personally I don't see how leaving the EU can help achieve any of those, but I may be wrong.
The people voted for brexit, (albeit by a pretty small margin).This is what has left the county so divided and angry. Based on that vote we should in my opinion leave the EU, but it's HOW we leave that is important.
It's a wealthy man at the moment who would be prepared to bet a large sum of money on the eventual outcome.
My sincere wish is that we leave with a deal that sees everyone prospering, but I honestly can't see it. In a no deal scenario I see little protection for the most vulnerable in society, those reliant on medication, the very poor, the unemployed, those already dependent on foodbanks etc. etc., but if we end up leaving with no deal I genuinely hope that my pessimism is misplaced.
So with those thoughts I'm now withdrawing from this debate as it's far too time consuming, and I wish you all well. Please look to the future and find consensus. [I've been considering this course of action for some weeks now but keep getting sucked in]
And let me reassure you that if no deal is as disastrous for the poor, sick and this region as I predict it will be, I will not be coming back on here gloating and saying "I told you so", but I hope that some of you might be gracious enough at that point to admit that you might have been wrong and that a deal would have been the better way forward.
I may be tempted to view this thread from time to time, (especially as the story unfolds) but for now I wish you all the best. UTC

[RingoMcCartney]

Sadly Ringo I honestly believe he cant see the hypocrisy of his post.
He really believes that a government of unity heavily weighted by remainers, will fairly represent the public weighted by Leavers.

No one has explained the conundrum of how they want a deal, but arent prepared to let Boris seek a deal.
The conundrum of how the EU, who remainers keep saying wont change the WA will do a deal with them.
Maybe the government of national unity just plan to accept the WA they voted down 3 times.

Remainers, but especially the remainers in Parliament are just full of ********.

He says -

How can it be a govt of National Unity unless it accurately represents the 52% / 48% split in favour of leave?
That's the whole point of having a coalition that works for the people, it has to represent as accurately as possible the views of the entire population.

And he forgets that around 66% of constituencies voted Leave, yet around 75% of MPs voted Remain!!! So, using his own argument , hes subconsciously admitting that the current parliament doesn't represent the "views of the entire population" . And there in lies the problem and why, after 3 and a half years, we haven't left yet. This 75/25 Remain Parliament has prerogued the People. This 75/25 Remain Parliament has suspended democracy for 3 and a half years. This 75/25 Remain Parliament bleats that brexit is "causing division and uncertainty" but its entirely at ease getting a further extension to prolong "the division and uncertainty!!"

The idea of a "Government of National Unity" is anything other than another desperate attempt to usurp the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed is for the birds.

As for remoaners claiming they're working to "stop a no deal brexit" is embarrassing. Had they wanted to , Corbyn, Starmer and Benn and the rest, should have voted for the deal when they had chance , instead of rejecting it 3 bloody times!

A blind man on a galloping horse can see they simply don't accept the referendum result and want to stop brexit full stop.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Oh dear

[Spijed]

Ringo, you never answered my question yesterday that if a couple agree to get married, whether they should be forced to marry, even if they have second thoughts beforehand.

Using Brexit, many like you seem to think that once a person has agreed to something they should be FORCED to go ahead with it, even though they may have changed their mind!

I presume you think 'Cooling Off' periods should never be allowed either.

[aggi]

No, it's not an assumption, I've never been to the Etihad, but I know City are great, because theres wall to wall coverage on the tv.
Over the last 30 years I've must have seen as much news stories on London, the good areas and the bad, to realise that the poorest areas are inhabited by mostly migrants or second generation immigrants. I dont think I need to live there for a year to prove my point, your just being pedantic, because although you know it's TRUE it doesn't suit remainers argument of why poor areas of London voted remain, whilst poor areas in the rest of the country voted leave.

If I based my view of Burnley on what I'd seen in news stories how accurate do you think it would be?

What you've done is taken what you see as a correlation and decided what the cause is. Do you really think that there are no poor, working class who aren't recent immigrants in London?

What about Scotland? Are they immigrants or are they all rich there?

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo, you never answered my question yesterday that if a couple agree to get married, whether they should be forced to marry, even if they have second thoughts beforehand.

Using Brexit, many like you seem to think that once a person has agreed to something they should be FORCED to go ahead with it, even though they may have changed their mind!

I presume you think 'Cooling Off' periods should never be allowed either.

They got married in 1975 (the non binding common Market referendum) There was no "cooling off "period ,it was implemented.


They signed the divorce papers in 2016. (The 2016 People's Vote)


Remoaners - the jilted partner who cant accept it's over, desperately clinging on, while the other one just wants to move on to bigger and better things.

[Spijed]

There was no "cooling off "period ,it was implemented.

They got married in 1975 (the non binding common Market referendum)


They signed the divorce papers in 2016. (The 2016 People's Vote)


Remoaners - the jilted partner who cant accept it's over, desperately clinging on, while the other one just wants to move on to bigger and better things.

Again, you just will not answer the simple question as to whether someone should be FORCED to go through with something if they have grave misgivings about their original decision.

[RingoMcCartney]

Again, you just will not answer the simple question as to whether someone should be FORCED to go through with something if they have grave misgivings about their original decision.

And you will not accept the plain and simple fact that the 2016 Peoples Vote was someone showing they had grave misgivings about their original decision! They weren't prepared to be FORCED.

[Colburn_Claret]

Sorry meant leave not remain. You said the rest of the country voted leave, where did you get that from?

The post was about how the poor voted, not how the country voted. The poor in London having a far larger percentage of migrants or second generation immigrants than the poor outside of London, would look on Brexit completely differently. Hence the difference in the way they voted.

[Devils_Advocate]

Didnt realise these migrants born outside the UK & Ireland were allowed to vote. Oh well everydays a school day

[Colburn_Claret]

And one advantage of leaving without a deal is that it will stop all the infighting. The Remain MPs will know that we have left and will be gutted. Who knows what they will do. But most of the MPs in the House claim that they want us to leave. So when we leave (as is likely) without a deal, the vast majority of the MPs will be glad we are out, and the vast majority of MPs will be sorry that we haven't got a deal, and so all those MPs on all sides of the House will be united in wanting to make the best deal possible.

Or perhaps they won't.

Imagine a scenario where we've actually left. Then all those MPs who claim they want a deal, will be all stood behind Boris encouraging him to get the best deal possible.




Yeh, right

[RingoMcCartney]

Didnt realise these migrants born outside the UK & Ireland were allowed to vote. Oh well everydays a school day

Not everyday.

Just Mondays to Fridays for you!

[Devils_Advocate]

Not everyday.

Just Mondays to Fridays for you!

Can you and Colburn school me a bit more on these migrants voting in the referendum please?

[RingoMcCartney]

Can you and Colburn school me a bit more on these migrants voting in the referendum please?

Not my argument sunshine.

Ask teacher tomorrow!







(Dont forget your Peppa Pig lunch box)