Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Jakubclaret]

Nope, it destroys your point that you have to meet someone to know their character. I found out far more about him in the press than I ever did face to face.

If that works for you & you are surrounded by close family & friends who you can trust that's fine, I actually interpreted your short story as an example of human nature in being too trusting & also foolishly making the incorrect judgement call, like I'll reiterate you don't know what changed the person to do that it's obviously not normal behaviour wouldn't surprise me if there was more to it & I'm in no way excusing that course of action. Agree to disagree, don't wish to digress from the thread.

[nil_desperandum]

Exactly, you never know & what you did think about the man initially being a nice bloke & later it transpiring that he was capable of murdering his wife, it was probably a shock that you made that incorrect judgement, you don't know what led up to this particular course of action. With that story it demonstrates never be sure & people change, it actually reinforces my point in keeping a open mind.

But he's a proven liar over a long period, and recent events have demonstrated he hasn't changed.
What sort of a man is it who isn't even prepared to disclose how many children he has, and even sought a court injunction to try to deny the existence of number 5?

[CombatClaret]

And having "Got nothing left except 'we voted for it'. is not half as unprincipled as your typical remoaner arguement-

"I'm normalising being a sore loser"

We lost a valuable point at Leicester to a highly questionable "foul".

But guess what. It's a new day today. I'm over it. We lost I accept it.

You should give it a go.

I'll treat the referendum exactly like playing Leicester, in that we do it twice

[Jakubclaret]

But he's a proven liar over a long period, and recent events have demonstrated he hasn't changed.
What sort of a man is it who isn't even prepared to disclose how many children he has, and even sought a court injunction to try to deny the existence of number 5?

I'm 99% that he isn't completely trustworthy, I don't know the person directly, it's been a long day & this my last post for tonight, I didn't really want to debate on whether BJ is a liar as I think it detracts from the other issues which are far more important.

[Darthlaw]

I'll treat the referendum exactly like playing Leicester, in that we do it twice

Leicester will probably be a little ****** off when they find out their three points will be wiped off from the weekend, pending the result at the turf though...

[Lancasterclaret]

Customs union would have pretty widespread support.

I know people think its not Brexit, but we wouldn't be in the EU.

Thats the mandate fulfilled.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Customs Union is the one thing we can safely say nobody voted for - because it is totally insane.

Remainers want it now because it is membership-lite, worse than staying in but seamless trading if they accept we have to at least pretend to leave. After pretending for a while, they would then say the disaster it causes mean we should reapply.

No Leaver I have ever met wants it. Some want EEA style Norway arrangement in the single market, but none want the Customs Union. It would take away all our influence, and virtually all the benefits from leaving. People suggesting it have only two conceivable reasons - either they are thick as mince, or they are deliberately lying about their motives.

MPs of course are reason 2.

[dsr]

I didn't think your question was serious. I thought you were joking, that's how dumb i thought your question was. But anyway...

I have the carbon footprint of a gnat, i share climate science with those who are ignorant, and i donate to climate change awareness charities. Oooh, look at me and how virtuous I am.

Oh, and none of that would matter one iota is i voted for climate science denying *****, and those who oppose action.

And you don't even mention the good work you do in drumming up support for climate change action by swearing at people, telling them they are stupid, and explaining why you are the know-it-all who has all the answers. I'm sure you're winning a lot of friends for the cause.

[Lancasterclaret]

Customs Union is the one thing we can safely say nobody voted for - because it is totally insane.

Remainers want it now because it is membership-lite, worse than staying in but seamless trading if they accept we have to at least pretend to leave. After pretending for a while, they would then say the disaster it causes mean we should reapply.

No Leaver I have ever met wants it. Some want EEA style Norway arrangement in the single market, but none want the Customs Union. It would take away all our influence, and virtually all the benefits from leaving. People suggesting it have only two conceivable reasons - either they are thick as mince, or they are deliberately lying about their motives.

MPs of course are reason 2.

Its Brexit though.

Everyone wants this over, and this is Brexit.

Ok, so we miss out on those lucrative never seen before trade deals with Mongolia, but they don't exist so its a win/win

[Paul Waine]

That's quite a claim to make.
I'm hard pressed to think of any current MP who is less trustworthy based on the available evidence.
He was initially sacked by The Times for lying in an important article.
He later became editor of the Spectator in 1999 after telling owner Conrad Black, (who was later convicted of fraud), that he would not pursue a political career. This promise was broken in 2001 when he won election as Conservative MP for Henley in Oxfordshire.
Three years later he was forced to apologise for an article in tht magazine which blamed drunken Liverpool fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster and suggested that the people of the city were wallowing in their victim status.
When Michael Howard became leader of the Conservatives in 2003 he gave Boris Johnson two new jobs – party vice-chairman and shadow arts minister.
He was sacked from both positions in November 2004 after assuring Mr Howard that tabloid reports of his affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt were false and an “inverted pyramid of piffle”. When the story was found to be true, he refused to resign.
As London Mayor: Having promised in his 2008 manifesto to ensure there would be manned ticket offices at every train station, he quickly agreed to widespread closures to pay for a 24-hour tube.
He also promised to eradicate rough sleeping by 2012, only for it to double during his leadership. He was also accused of telling “barefaced lies” after he stated that police numbers had increased in London despite government cuts.
He also backed the infamous claim on the side of the bus that the UK was sending £350m a week to the EU, followed by “let’s fund our NHS instead”. The UK Statistics Authority issued an official statement in May 2016 describing the claim as “misleading”, but Mr Johnson repeated it in an article in the Telegraph in September 2017.
Additionally he made ridiculous claims about Turkey's imminent membership of the EU, despite no evidence to support this, and of course an innocent British woman is stuck in an Iranian prison due to his careless undiplomatic talk.
Oh, and lest we forget, he is widely assumed to have lied to the Queen over the reasons for prorogation, though that cannot be proven.
Edit: Martin you linked an article whilst I was busy extrapolating the info from a few sources. Anyway, people don't always open links, so my research might go a little further to bring Johnson's character into question.

Hi nil_d, it's a fascinating list. Let's have a go at considering how significant these "lies" all are:

1) He was initially sacked by The Times for lying in an important article. - I believe he "made up a quote" from someone. Yes, agree, this is not good journalist behaviour. Is he the only one? I'm sure we've read the occasional headline and thought "what has the heading got to do with the article underneath?" We all wish media standards are higher, but is BJ the only one? or in a minority?

2) He later became editor of the Spectator in 1999 after telling owner Conrad Black, (who was later convicted of fraud), that he would not pursue a political career. This promise was broken in 2001 when he won election as Conservative MP for Henley in Oxfordshire. - And, yes, I believe Mr Black proclaims he was wrongly convicted of fraud. How long do "promises" to new bosses last before they are no longer promises? (No one on here accepted a job offer but still kept looking for a better job)? If the "no political career" was important, why wasn't it a term of his contract? i.e. if you are appointed to political office your job ends....

3) Three years later he was forced to apologise for an article in that magazine which blamed drunken Liverpool fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster and suggested that the people of the city were wallowing in their victim status. - Yes, bad judgement, at best "lazy research" if any, but not a lie.

4) When Michael Howard became leader of the Conservatives in 2003 he gave Boris Johnson two new jobs – party vice-chairman and shadow arts minister. He was sacked from both positions in November 2004 after assuring Mr Howard that tabloid reports of his affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt were false and an “inverted pyramid of piffle”. When the story was found to be true, he refused to resign. - I wouldn't worry too much about "two jobs" I doubt either was intended to be full-time. A lot of people get caught out around "personal life" stuff. Some others, maybe never. Some only after they are out of office.

5) As London Mayor: Having promised in his 2008 manifesto to ensure there would be manned ticket offices at every train station, he quickly agreed to widespread closures to pay for a 24-hour tube. - So, a manifesto commitment to "manned ticket offices" is changed to find the money to fund a better tube service. The Oyster card also took off around this time, we now also have contactless card payments. What would the ticket offices be doing when most people don't buy tickets any more?

6) He also promised to eradicate rough sleeping by 2012, only for it to double during his leadership. He was also accused of telling “barefaced lies” after he stated that police numbers had increased in London despite government cuts. - I'm sure we'd all like to "eradicate" rough sleeping. How do we do it, if people continue to sleep rough?

7) He also backed the infamous claim on the side of the bus that the UK was sending £350m a week to the EU, followed by “let’s fund our NHS instead”. The UK Statistics Authority issued an official statement in May 2016 describing the claim as “misleading”, but Mr Johnson repeated it in an article in the Telegraph in September 2017. - And, I believe the court decided that this was a political campaign statement..... not the first politician and won't be the last to make campaign statements....

8) Additionally he made ridiculous claims about Turkey's imminent membership of the EU, despite no evidence to support this, - Turkey were and, maybe still are, an applicant to join the EU. Of course, political developments in Turkey mean it's now a long way off. (And, not just the very recent Kurds/Syria stuff).

9) and of course an innocent British woman is stuck in an Iranian prison due to his careless undiplomatic talk. - obviously, BJ hadn't read his brief thoroughly.

10) Oh, and lest we forget, he is widely assumed to have lied to the Queen over the reasons for prorogation, though that cannot be proven. - Political claims by BJ's opponents - but this doesn't make it true.

If there any more on the posted link - I'll take your recommendation and not follow the link.

I guess if we didn't have the Brexit divide no one would be that bothered about BJ's relationship with the truth any more than we are with any other politician.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Reading the tweets from Lewis Goodall (Sky) it's now becoming apparent how much of a disaster the Letwin amendment is for the Government.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 0279352322" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Goodall is a decent enough lad but he is quite inexperienced (just turned 30 I think). He is joining Newsnight so he is obviously a bit of a leftie, and that often clouds his judgement.

I agree with the thrust of his argument - I agree a Customs Union will be added and a second ref will narrowly fail.

The bit I do not agree with is his conclusion, that it is a nightmare for Johnson.

An election would be inevitable after that. Johnson would refuse to negotiate a CU. There would have to be four main manifestos - The Illiberals for revoke, Labour for a Customs Union and a second referendum, Tories for the current deal, and Brexit Party for no deal.

The BP are the big risk because a clean break has some allure, but I think Brexit voters would know it is Johnson or no Brexit. When the disaster that is the CU is exposed in a massive election publicity campaign, it is hard to see Johnson not winning a majority. That would make the final trade deal harder, not softer, so Remain would lose out again.

Conclusion:

1. Remainers should have voted for May’s deal.
2. Having not, they should now vote for Johnson’s deal.
3. (If they don’t vote for it) they will end up with a hard Brexit. The EU know this, it is why they are pushing hard for this to get signed off.

[Paul Waine]

Its Brexit though.

Everyone wants this over, and this is Brexit.

Ok, so we miss out on those lucrative never seen before trade deals with Mongolia, but they don't exist so its a win/win

Hi Lancs, I know you will welcome me mentioning this, the reality is that a customs union doesn't deliver the opportunity for the UK to make trade deals with other countries around the world. In effect, the reality is a customs union is not "leaving the EU."

[Devils_Advocate]

Hi Lancs, I know you will welcome me mentioning this, the reality is that a customs union doesn't deliver the opportunity for the UK to make trade deals with other countries around the world. In effect, the reality is a customs union is not "leaving the EU."

Turkey is in the customs union and not in the EU so the reality is that we can end our membership with the EU as per the referendum question and result whilst staying in the customs union

[martin_p]

Hi nil_d, it's a fascinating list. Let's have a go at considering how significant these "lies" all are:

1) He was initially sacked by The Times for lying in an important article. - I believe he "made up a quote" from someone. Yes, agree, this is not good journalist behaviour. Is he the only one? I'm sure we've read the occasional headline and thought "what has the heading got to do with the article underneath?" We all wish media standards are higher, but is BJ the only one? or in a minority?

2) He later became editor of the Spectator in 1999 after telling owner Conrad Black, (who was later convicted of fraud), that he would not pursue a political career. This promise was broken in 2001 when he won election as Conservative MP for Henley in Oxfordshire. - And, yes, I believe Mr Black proclaims he was wrongly convicted of fraud. How long do "promises" to new bosses last before they are no longer promises? (No one on here accepted a job offer but still kept looking for a better job)? If the "no political career" was important, why wasn't it a term of his contract? i.e. if you are appointed to political office your job ends....

3) Three years later he was forced to apologise for an article in that magazine which blamed drunken Liverpool fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster and suggested that the people of the city were wallowing in their victim status. - Yes, bad judgement, at best "lazy research" if any, but not a lie.

4) When Michael Howard became leader of the Conservatives in 2003 he gave Boris Johnson two new jobs – party vice-chairman and shadow arts minister. He was sacked from both positions in November 2004 after assuring Mr Howard that tabloid reports of his affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt were false and an “inverted pyramid of piffle”. When the story was found to be true, he refused to resign. - I wouldn't worry too much about "two jobs" I doubt either was intended to be full-time. A lot of people get caught out around "personal life" stuff. Some others, maybe never. Some only after they are out of office.

5) As London Mayor: Having promised in his 2008 manifesto to ensure there would be manned ticket offices at every train station, he quickly agreed to widespread closures to pay for a 24-hour tube. - So, a manifesto commitment to "manned ticket offices" is changed to find the money to fund a better tube service. The Oyster card also took off around this time, we now also have contactless card payments. What would the ticket offices be doing when most people don't buy tickets any more?

6) He also promised to eradicate rough sleeping by 2012, only for it to double during his leadership. He was also accused of telling “barefaced lies” after he stated that police numbers had increased in London despite government cuts. - I'm sure we'd all like to "eradicate" rough sleeping. How do we do it, if people continue to sleep rough?

7) He also backed the infamous claim on the side of the bus that the UK was sending £350m a week to the EU, followed by “let’s fund our NHS instead”. The UK Statistics Authority issued an official statement in May 2016 describing the claim as “misleading”, but Mr Johnson repeated it in an article in the Telegraph in September 2017. - And, I believe the court decided that this was a political campaign statement..... not the first politician and won't be the last to make campaign statements....

8) Additionally he made ridiculous claims about Turkey's imminent membership of the EU, despite no evidence to support this, - Turkey were and, maybe still are, an applicant to join the EU. Of course, political developments in Turkey mean it's now a long way off. (And, not just the very recent Kurds/Syria stuff).

9) and of course an innocent British woman is stuck in an Iranian prison due to his careless undiplomatic talk. - obviously, BJ hadn't read his brief thoroughly.

10) Oh, and lest we forget, he is widely assumed to have lied to the Queen over the reasons for prorogation, though that cannot be proven. - Political claims by BJ's opponents - but this doesn't make it true.

If there any more on the posted link - I'll take your recommendation and not follow the link.

I guess if we didn't have the Brexit divide no one would be that bothered about BJ's relationship with the truth any more than we are with any other politician.

Name me one other PM in modern times with such a list of lies and deceit on his CV.

[nil_desperandum]

I guess if we didn't have the Brexit divide no one would be that bothered about BJ's relationship with the truth any more than we are with any other politician.

I rather think that most decent people would.
Does his history and character really not concern you?
I don't always agree with you, but in the past you've always appeared principled and decent.

[Paul Waine]

Name me one other PM in modern times with such a list of lies and deceit on his CV.

Are we counting number of size? Maybe Alastair Campbell can help with your question?

[Mala591]

Customs union is a PARTIAL Brexit

We will still have independent immigration policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy and control over all non-customs union law. Wouldn't be my choice but is a definite option.

[Paul Waine]

Turkey is in the customs union and not in the EU so the reality is that we can end our membership with the EU as per the referendum question and result whilst staying in the customs union

HI DA, can UK make trade deals with other countries while in customs union with EU?

[martin_p]

Are we counting number of size? Maybe Alastair Campbell can help with your question?

If you’re talking about Blair then it’d be helpful if you could list all his lies when he became PM.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Name me one other PM in modern times with such a list of lies and deceit on his CV.

*Looks for sexed up dossier used by a former PM to take us to war under false pretences*

[martin_p]

HI DA, can UK make trade deals with other countries while in customs union with EU?

Here’s a list of the trade deals Turkey has done since it entered a customs union with the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-tr ... _of_Turkey

[Devils_Advocate]

HI DA, can UK make trade deals with other countries while in customs union with EU?

Irrelevant to the statement you made stating that "the reality is a customs union is not leaving the EU." We clearly can leave the EU and remain in a customs union

[Paul Waine]

I rather think that most decent people would.
Does his history and character really not concern you?
I don't always agree with you, but in the past you've always appeared principled and decent.

I like principled and decent people. We don't appear to have that luxury with our politicians. I thought than TM could be a good unifying politician, as a remain supporter, when she became PM. For whatever reason, it didn't work out for TM - or the country. Maybe not enough experience of going beyond running through the odd wheat field. I don't know, only child of a vicar compared with BJ who's had a difficult family background - I'm sure his mother's health had an impact on a young boy and maybe that is his "history and character." Politics is a very rough game at present, getting Brexit delivered requires someone "rough." More chance that BJ can do this than anyone else in politics at present.

[tiger76]

Sorry but this is nonsense and you know it is. There was already the Benn act there to stop a no deal unless there was a deal. There is a deal. Remainer MPs are just using every trick to frustrate Brexit and attach a second loaded referendum to overturn the first one.

It’s as simple as that and you know it is.

Last week MP'S quite rightly wanted no deal avoided,now there is a deal to vote for Labour will support it,but only with a confirmatory referendum/people's vote call it what you want,the reality is the HOC will never vote for a meaningful brexit,so either it's BRINO or remain,Labour are playing with fire in their Northern English strongholds,they'[ve clearly not learnt from their Scottish experience in 2015,an election will happen soon i'd have thought,and many of the current crop of Labour MP'S will be looking for new jobs.

[Devils_Advocate]

Last week MP'S quite rightly wanted no deal avoided,now there is a deal to vote for Labour will support it,but only with a confirmatory referendum/people's vote call it what you want,the reality is the HOC will never vote for a meaningful brexit,so either it's BRINO or remain,Labour are playing with fire in their Northern English strongholds,they'[ve clearly not learnt from their Scottish experience in 2015,an election will happen soon i'd have thought,and many of the current crop of Labour MP'S will be looking for new jobs.

Do you think a politician should do what they believe is best for their country and their constituents or would you prefer politicians to take the action that just best suits them to keep themselves in a job?

[Paul Waine]

Here’s a list of the trade deals Turkey has done since it entered a customs union with the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-tr ... _of_Turkey

Interesting, martin, but that doesn't answer the UK's situation.

This link shows UK's options in different scenarios. Turkey's custom union with EU is described as providing limited opportunities for separate trade deals - with respect to UK.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ionship-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

Irrelevant to the statement you made stating that "the reality is a customs union is not leaving the EU." We clearly can leave the EU and remain in a customs union

Hi DA, I don't like to be a pedant, we are discussing the UK leaving the EU and making trade agreements with other countries. Most commentators acknowledge that that is not possible if the UK stays in a customs union with the EU.

Yes, you can have a different political view point. No worries.

[Paul Waine]

Do you think a politician should do what they believe is best for their country and their constituents or would you prefer politicians to take the action that just best suits them to keep themselves in a job?

If our politicians all understood what was best for our country we'd have sorted Brexit already. All this delaying and dividing is not "best for their country."

[Devils_Advocate]

Hi DA, I don't like to be a pedant, we are discussing the UK leaving the EU and making trade agreements with other countries. Most commentators acknowledge that that is not possible if the UK stays in a customs union with the EU.

Yes, you can have a different political view point. No worries.

Fair enough but dont claim things that are not true to support your position then. I mean just look at your reaction to the claims about Johnson's lies and then you state something that isnt true.

I am fed up with people trying to claim their version of Brexit and what it has to contain is the one we voted for. The vote was just to leave the EU and the range of ways we can do this is enormous hence the mess we are in.

Now ive no problem with you putting forward your views on free trade deals and anything else but just try not to lie or misrepresent things that can be clearly proved to be wrong whilst doing so

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Do you think a politician should do what they believe is best for their country and their constituents or would you prefer politicians to take the action that just best suits them to keep themselves in a job?

An MP should represent their constituents, respect their wishes and also do what they think is right for the country etc, but I think they should be open and honest when they go against their constituents which is something that almost never happens.
I also happen to think that when an MP decides to change party there should be a by election because they're usually voted in by supporters of a particular party.

A large number of MP's campaigned at the election stating they'd see through Brexit and have then consistently voted against it in line with orders from their party leaders.
The excuse given is that they now know more about Brexit than they did when they were campaigning for re-election.
It's almost like they didn't know what they were talking about, ironic really as that's something regularly leveled at Leave voters, and they chose the popular route to re-election.....

How do you expect people to accept our MP's know what's best to do for the country when they've openly admitted that they campaigned for something they didn't know much about?

[Devils_Advocate]

If our politicians all understood what was best for our country we'd have sorted Brexit already. All this delaying and dividing is not "best for their country."

I agree and I wasnt saying that any politicians views or beliefs are correct. The point I was making is for years we have moaned about career politicians who are just in it for themselves so the idea that we have politicians willing to stay with the courage of their convictions even if it means losing their job and ending their career is a good thing and much better than a politician who will put their selves and their careers first

[RingoMcCartney]

We've been here before Ringo

I've already answered it.

I genuinely don't get why you think I haven't.

Anyone who follows this thread and reads my posts will know where I stand on this one.

Now this is exactly, exactly what I expected !

I know what you would vote for.

I know that you wouldn't agree with everything in a parties manifesto.

I know that you're prepared to vote for the libdems advocating tearing up Article 50 without a referendum.

But what you have not said how you would feel if , a government is elected on a manifesto pledge of taking the United kingdom out of the EU without a referendum did just that.


If you have said how you would feel, previously, please point me to the post.

[Paul Waine]

Last week MP'S quite rightly wanted no deal avoided,now there is a deal to vote for Labour will support it,but only with a confirmatory referendum/people's vote call it what you want,the reality is the HOC will never vote for a meaningful brexit,so either it's BRINO or remain,Labour are playing with fire in their Northern English strongholds,they'[ve clearly not learnt from their Scottish experience in 2015,an election will happen soon i'd have thought,and many of the current crop of Labour MP'S will be looking for new jobs.

General election is the only proper way to progress if BJ's deal doesn't get HoC support. FTPA requires a majority to support GE. Labour won't back a GE that they sense they will lose. A new referendum doesn't "fix" the issue. The only lesson from 2016 is that the electorate can only vote on straightforward binary issues. There are much too many variables around "leave with this deal" or "remain in the EU." Everything, on both sides of the campaign will be "get me a bigger bus" type of statements. And, the harm a "you all voted once, but we now want you to vote again" campaign would do will divide politics in the UK for potentially decades, it won't heal any divides.

[Devils_Advocate]

An MP should represent their constituents, respect their wishes and also do what they think is right for the country etc, but I think they should be open and honest when they go against their constituents which is something that almost never happens.
I also happen to think that when an MP decides to change party there should be a by election because they're usually voted in by supporters of a particular party.

A large number of MP's campaigned at the election stating they'd see through Brexit and have then consistently voted against it in line with orders from their party leaders.
The excuse given is that they now know more about Brexit than they did when they were campaigning for re-election.
It's almost like they didn't know what they were talking about, ironic really as that's something regularly leveled at Leave voters, and they chose the popular route to re-election.....

How do you expect people to accept our MP's know what's best to do for the country when they've openly admitted that they campaigned for something they didn't know much about?

Labour were clear in their manifesto around what type of Brexit they would support and what kind they would reject. They were elected on this pledge so have every right to act on it especially as they have been completely excluded from any cross party input to coming up with the deal

MPs are also elected to do what they believe is best for their constituents and not exactly what their constituents want them to do

[RingoMcCartney]

I'll treat the referendum exactly like playing Leicester, in that we do it twice

Me too.

And , unlike you. If we lose,




















I'll accept it.




(Remoaners- the sore loser, whining on about a dodgy decision, long after the refs blown his whistle)

[Imploding Turtle]

Well if your going to have an educated debate.

You don’t have a carbon footprint of a gnat as you claim.

Wow. You actually thought the "gnat" hyperbole was a serious and non-hyperbolic claim. Or you're pretending to think it. Either way that's pretty dumb.

[Imploding Turtle]

Me too.

And , unlike you. If we lose,

I'll accept it.



(Remoaners- the sore loser, whining on about a dodgy decision, long after the refs blown his whistle)

But we played Leicester last season. Why should we get to play them again? The result was already settled.



And btw, I like how you're admitting that it was a dodgy decision in 2016.

[RingoMcCartney]

[quote="Devils_Advocate"]Labour were clear in their manifesto around what type of Brexit they would support and what kind they would reject. They were elected on this pledge so have every right to act on it especially as they have been completely excluded from any cross party input to coming up with the deal

MPs are also elected to do what they believe is best for their constituents and not exactly what their constituents want them to do[/quote]

Imagine the next general returns a tory party/ brexit party coalition.

As our "elected representatives " what would you say if they said, "there shouldn't be another general election for 30 years as that's in the best interests of our constituents"?

[RingoMcCartney]

But we played Leicester last season. Why should we get to play them again? The result was already settled.



And btw, I like how you're admitting that it was a dodgy decision in 2016.

And the above post proves that you know as much about football as you do democracy

Which is the square root of ef'all

[Devils_Advocate]

Imagine the next general returns a tory party/ brexit party coalition.

As our "elected representatives " what would you say if they said, "there shouldn't be another general election for 30 years as that's in the best interests of our constituents"?

They can say it all they like but they couldn't legally do it. The Tory's couldn't even manage to get away with extending the Proroguing of Parliament so I'll leave you to come up with wild fantasy scenarios whist you await your crush to reply to you

[martin_p]

Me too.

And , unlike you. If we lose,




















I'll accept it.




(Remoaners- the sore loser, whining on about a dodgy decision, long after the refs blown his whistle)

Ok. So let’s just say that after the match, feeling that the result have been decided on some poor information (that our goal should be ruled out), there was some way in the Premier League rules of challenging the result and maybe getting the match replayed. Should we pursue that?

Yes or No?

(and I know this is a fanciful scenario, but it’s a method you use on a regular basis, so I’m sure you’ll indulge me).

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Here’s a list of the trade deals Turkey has done since it entered a customs union with the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-tr ... _of_Turkey

Out of interest have the EU modified their agreement with Turkey yet?
The part where countries with a FTA with the EU can ship goods to Turkey tariff free via the EU, but goods from Turkey to those countries are subject to Tariffs?
Also they have no say about which countries have FTA's with the EU and no say on the regulations the EU demands they meet.

One of the reasons why Turkey are running around signing up to FTA's with non-EU countries is due to the shafting they were getting courtesy of the EU.

[RingoMcCartney]

This is the part of the movie where turtles head attempts to provoke further attention craving interaction.

Unfortunately, for the bunker dwelling shell boi, this is the bit where the audience go, ,"is that it!? I thought Ringo would have been slightly more interested in slapping the message board Gollum down. (Sigh) oh well"

[RingoMcCartney]

They can say it all they like but they couldn't legally do it. The Tory's couldn't even manage to get away with extending the Proroguing of Parliament so I'll leave you to come up with wild fantasy scenarios whist you await your crush to reply to you

That's an actual answer!?

Try again.

Acting in the best interests.....
.

[martin_p]

This is the part of the movie where turtles head attempts to provoke further attention craving interaction.

Yes, he’s the one that consistently fills his posts with multiple emojis, large font in bold, unnecessary line spacing, all that ‘look at me’ type stuff.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ok. So let’s just say that after the match, feeling that the result have been decided on some poor information (that our goal should be ruled out), there was some way in the Premier League rules of challenging the result and maybe getting the match replayed. Should we pursue that?

Yes or No?

(and I know this is a fanciful scenario, but it’s a method you use on a regular basis, so I’m sure you’ll indulge me).

Leicester city away- we lost. I accept it. Do you?

Yes or no?

The 2016 referendum result. You lost. Accept it.


Yes or no?

[CrosspoolClarets]

I like principled and decent people. We don't appear to have that luxury with our politicians. I thought than TM could be a good unifying politician, as a remain supporter, when she became PM. For whatever reason, it didn't work out for TM - or the country. Maybe not enough experience of going beyond running through the odd wheat field. I don't know, only child of a vicar compared with BJ who's had a difficult family background - I'm sure his mother's health had an impact on a young boy and maybe that is his "history and character." Politics is a very rough game at present, getting Brexit delivered requires someone "rough." More chance that BJ can do this than anyone else in politics at present.

Hi Paul, interesting post, I agree, and a bit off piste but you may enjoy this anecdote which surprised me when I read I:

A huge percentage of Prime Ministers of our country, and US Presidents, have experienced trauma as a child. It is a MUCH bigger percentage than the general population. 12 US presidents, including Clinton and Obama, lost their father when they were young. Clinton and Obama both lost theirs in car crashes, Clinton’s dad before he was even born. Trump was sent to military school as a 13 year old, where kids were allegedly beaten up by adults.

In the UK an astonishing 67% of Prime Ministers have lost a parent as a child (more when early adulthood is added). Blair’s mum died of cancer while he was at Oxford. Theresa May’s dad also died in a car accident when she was very young. Churchill’s dad died of syphilis when Winston was 20. Boris had the known issues with his mum’s breakdown and him having to be sent overseas to boarding school where like Trump he allegedly saw a lot of abuse.

Then we move onto sportspeople - Andy Murray was at Dunblane hiding under the desk while the bullets were flying, Mo Farah and Djokovic both in the middle of war zones as a child.

The conclusion is clear - the old adage that what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger is true. It may change us for the worse, but it also gives us that drive to succeed. I’m not sure that Johnson is an unusual PM / President. I think he is par for the course.

[tiger76]

Do you think a politician should do what they believe is best for their country and their constituents or would you prefer politicians to take the action that just best suits them to keep themselves in a job?

I've no issue with politicians sticking to their principles,the problem on all sides is that they are all constantly moving the goalposts,most people in 2016 would have accepted a soft/moderate brexit however you wish to term it,but sadly the extremes of the ERG on one hand and the refusal of parliament to find a compromise solution is what's frustrating the public,remember parliament had the chance during the indictive votes to make their voice heard,and yet they're still wasn't a majority for either a 2nd referendum,that may now have changed,we'll possibly find out in the coming days,neither was their a majority for a CU arrangement although i'll admit it was close to passing but it didn't,now it's perfectly feasible that the government would have ignored those votes anyway,but at least the many moderates on both benches would have seen a potential way out of this protracted impasse.

As has been repeated ad nauseam parliament's good at staying what it doesn't want,but as yet it hasn't said what it does want,and until that changes we'll be watching groundhog day for the foreseeable future,the problem now is that whatever path MP'S ultimately pursue a large proportion of the population will be vehemently unhappy,if as seems the most likely outcome the WA passes narrowly,but with the caveat of a confirmatory referendum,and in that referendum the winning side gets a slim majority,as was the case in 2016,the country by which i mean the UK,will still be bitterly divided.

Unless parliament can somehow magic up a solution which satisfies both sides,which with the current arithmetic looks impossible,then the only 3 solutions that i can see is another referendum which will be divisise,a GE which again isn't guaranteed to change the numbers either way,or the nuclear option of revoking A50,it's a mugs games trying to predict anything these days,but of those 3 a 2nd referendum is the most likely.

There's very few members of parliament that will emerge with credit from this episode,David Cameron is to blame initially for being a smartarse and promising a referendum in the Tories 2015 manifesto,he like virtually everybody else never expected an outright majority,and this pledge would have been swiftly abandoned under any coalition/minority government,however having won he had to enact on this commitment,he thought getting some concessions from the EU would prove enough to sway any swing voters,but the remain campaign never porttrayed the benefits of EU membership,he and George Osborne run a negative campaign,just as they had in the Scottish indy ref,which nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,the big difference in the 2016 referendum was the remain lead was much smaller to begin with.

And then the morning after the result he resigned despite stating he wouldn't prior to the vote,this led to TM and all the chaos which has since ensued,the leave side are culpable as well even Farage favoured a Norway style arrangement post the result,and now he's gone full steam no deal,which again wasn't mentioned during the campaign,this would be the easiest trade deal in history according to Liam Fox,3 years down the line and the first stage hasn't been finalised yet.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Fair enough but dont claim things that are not true to support your position then. I mean just look at your reaction to the claims about Johnson's lies and then you state something that isnt true.

I am fed up with people trying to claim their version of Brexit and what it has to contain is the one we voted for. The vote was just to leave the EU and the range of ways we can do this is enormous hence the mess we are in.

Now ive no problem with you putting forward your views on free trade deals and anything else but just try not to lie or misrepresent things that can be clearly proved to be wrong whilst doing so

You may be fed up, but genuinely, honestly, how many Brexit voters do you know who voted with a desire to stay in the Customs Union?

I must have come across near to 500 since 2016, and I have never heard one admit to that.

[martin_p]

Leicester city away- we lost. I accept it. Do you?

Yes or no?

The 2016 referendum result. You lost. Accept it.


Yes or no?

Didn’t think you’d answer.