Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:08 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Weird that you presume their guilt.

You going to answer my question? Of what do people like me need to be warned exactly?

It isn’t directed at “people like you” we gave up on communists decades ago now they have turned in to NPCs who we all mock ..

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:We haven't had a first yet.

We have.

The United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, also known as the UK-wide referendum on the Parliamentary voting system was held on Thursday 5 May 2011 (the same date as local elections in many areas) in the United Kingdom (UK) to choose the method of electing MPs at subsequent general elections as part of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement drawn up after the 2010 general election which had resulted in the first hung parliament since February 1974 and also indirectly in the aftermath of the 2009 expenses scandal under the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and was the first national referendum to be held under provisions laid out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:10 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:It isn’t directed at “people like you” we gave up on communists decades ago now they have turned in to NPCs who we all mock ..

lol. I'm a communist, am I? News to me. I bet you can't explain why you think i'm a communist, can you? But you've still not answered my question. Stop being a coward and answer it.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:22 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:If he did his job properly he'd stop Theresa May from having Meaningful Vote 3 after her deal has been rejected by Parliament TWICE.

Caught a discussion about this between Angela Eagle and Andrew Neill on Politics Live,there was some talk about the legalities of bringing the same legislation before parliament again and again,i'm not that clued up on parliamentary etiquette,but surely TM must realise her deal isn't going to pass,however many times it's reworked.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:31 pm

tiger76 wrote:Caught a discussion about this between Angela Eagle and Andrew Neill on Politics Live,there was some talk about the legalities of bringing the same legislation before parliament again and again,i'm not that clued up on parliamentary etiquette,but surely TM must realise her deal isn't going to pass,however many times it's reworked.

Personally I think that there is a 50 / 50 chance that it will pass next week. It's the last hope for the ERG to be honest, and if they can persuade the DUP to vote for it then it might creep over the line.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:34 pm

aggi wrote:I'm not doubting that you've come across it, just that your experience clearly isn't representative of the country as a whole (and neither is mine).

I don't think QT, phone-ins, etc are particularly representative. They're the super politically engaged (or halfwits, a lot of those seem to appear on radio phone-ins regardless of the topic) so it's no surprise that they're angry.

Yes, I accept that, but the trend is what I am interested in. I see and feel it in people.

I don’t necessarily see it in wealthy Tory retirees (to use a stereotype). They want to leave but will be fine anyway. Where I see it is in poorer, working class, blue collar places (like, to use another stereotype, a garage full of motor mechanics). Many of these are the “left behind” and whether they were right or not they viewed Brexit as a key lever to improve their lives. Now they feel that is being taken away, how do we expect them to feel? No way they won’t be furious even if some of us do feel their judgement was flawed.

Soon, a leaflet will drop through their doors asking them to vote in European elections. That will light the blue-collar touchpaper, so to speak.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:38 pm

martin_p wrote:Bercow has done his job, decided on which amendments to call. He hasn’t unilaterally decided to call a second referendum like you claimed he could.

I said his role would be pivotal. I was right.

You said he cannot choose on his own. Now you've just admitted he decided ON HIS OWN which amendments to block and which to allow.

I've been proven right. And there's not another poster on here that I'm enjoying proving utterly wrong, yet again ,than you Marty.

Lovin' it Marty. Bloody lovin' it.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:42 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Personally I think that there is a 50 / 50 chance that it will pass next week. It's the last hope for the ERG to be honest, and if they can persuade the DUP to vote for it then it might creep over the line.

Some members of the ERG will not vote for what they see as Brexit in name only. The ERG doesn't have a bloc vote.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:44 pm

Listening to Baker on Peston last night, he's not going to vote for it.

Their plan is force a "No Deal" though he wouldn't go into details.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:45 pm

Burnley Ace saidThere was no caveat no small print specifying whether or not "they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act" or not. As you're desperately belatedly trying to say there was.

Finally an acceptance that it was a poorly phrased question, which given your newspaper of choice, now comes as no surprise!!

Chin up Ringo, we all love a trier and your comedic value is priceless - just for old times sake - give us your definition of evidence

There was no caveat no small print specifying whether or not "they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act" or not. As you're desperately belatedly trying to say there was.

Finally an acceptance that it was a poorly phrased question, which given your newspaper of choice, now comes as no surprise!!

Chin up Ringo, we all love a trier and your comedic value is priceless - just for old times sake - give us your definition of evidence

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:46 pm

dsr wrote:Some members of the ERG will not vote for what they see as Brexit in name only. The ERG doesn't have a bloc vote.

That's why I said about 50 / 50.
It depends how many ERG members will hold their noses and vote for it in order to "get us out" and then negotiate from there, and how many Labour MPs might be prepared to join them if they conclude it's May's deal or no brexit.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:51 pm

I was also mocked for suggesting, in October 2018, that when John Bercow announced millions had been ring fenced to pay for EU parliamentary in 2019, way back in March 2018 it added further to the argument that we were witnessing a political class and an establishment stich up of democracy.

Let's see how that pans out eh?....

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:52 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:There was no caveat no small print specifying whether or not "they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act" or not. As you're desperately belatedly trying to say there was.

Finally an acceptance that it was a poorly phrased question, which given your newspaper of choice, now comes as no surprise!!

Chin up Ringo, we all love a trier and your comedic value is priceless - just for old times sake - give us your definition of evidence

Absolutely top quality squirming, Burnley not so Ace!!!

How is pointing out that the question- "Did the majority of Labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum?" Was straight forward, unambiguous and caveat - free accepting it was "poorly phrased"!

You're in a parallel universe old boy!

It was poorly answered.

By you.

In a yes/no scenario you'd have has a 50/50% chance if you'd guessed!

But no. You're inadequate research skills totally let you down!

But to come back bleating I got the question wrong is comedy gold.

The more you squirm. The more I laugh.!!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:53 pm

Watching Ringo think he's outthought every single political commentator in the world on this is my new fave thing on here.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:55 pm

He's one of our own
He's one of our owwwnnn
That Jonny Bercow, he's one of our own

Bring out your dead!!!!

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:01 pm

Ringo Jakub Elizabeth has really lost the plot today.

Great stuff.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:02 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Watching Ringo think he's outthought every single political commentator in the world on this is my new fave thing on here.

Well it's similar to YOU thinking you're the UTC message board political and brexit oracle. Day in. Day out. With your sneering and self awareness-lacking pomposity.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:08 pm

Cheers mate, but everyone takes the **** out of you, not just me

Try attacking them occasionally for variation eh?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:11 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Anyone else shocked that Ringo reads The Sun?

Any body shocked that despite me quoting regularly from varied sources such as the Independent, Guardian, Politico, Mirror, Express, Spectator , New Statesman and the BBC.

Lancaster Claret cowers away from trying to defend fellow plotter against democracy, Dominic Grieve, and his treacherous parallel talks, with French officials. Instead, zooms in on the source that reveals why such a duplicitous , democracy denying cock roach, is acting in such a Machiavelian way.

Stay blinkered, Lancaster Claret

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:12 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Cheers mate, but everyone takes the **** out of you, not just me

Try attacking them occasionally for variation eh?

You Remoaners can mock me for being different.

I laugh at you for all being the same........

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:14 pm

I get you are annoyed btw, but this is what you get when you don't try to push a unilateral 52% only through.

Its not too late for a compromise that means we leave the EU but don't ignore the 48%.

Up to the MPs to take it.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:14 pm

FOR most of his career, Dominic Grieve has enthused about democratic “rules-based” systems, insisting that legal form, minted by elected authorities under the Crown and cobwebbed by time, was essential for political stability.

Over the two decades since he became an MP in 1997, this pukka, posh-suited, punctilious figure has been a pedantic regular in House of Commons debates.

He would crook one of his little fingers at an angle, give his neck muscles a creaky tweak and insist, with a shot of the cuffs and a shuffle of minimal notes, that ministers and officials must always comply with statute and precedent and time-honoured procedure.

When giving these lectures — they were seldom short — he would touch the rim of his glasses, give a little mallard-style cough and allow a patronising smile to inhabit his broadening bill.

He would explain that raw political instinct and passion, of the sort voiced by the Nigel Farages and Jeremy Corbyns of this world, were not by themselves good enough in politics. He looked down on such things.

With respect,” he would say — and it is one of the older truths of Westminster that when people say “with respect” they mean the sneery opposite — “with respect, we have to do things according to the rules, for that is the way this Parliament works and those are the sort of people we are.”

I paraphrase him but that was very much Grieve’s position. He was a creature of propriety.

He could cite legal sub-section and addendum and annex and codicil that proved, we were told, the unarguable merits of his position.

With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy is that he likes foreigners a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

Indignant. You could even say he was ag-Grieved. And so he touched the rims of his glasses, did some ducky quacking and set to work to block Brexit.

The trouble, as has often been pointed out to him, was that the democratic vote had gone against him.

At first he said, through gritted teeth (if ducks have teeth), that he would respect the result of the referendum.

In 2017 he was re-elected as MP for prosperous Beaconsfield, Bucks, on a Tory manifesto which said exactly that.

Every Tory MP promised to get us out of the customs union and single market.

Labour MPs also promised to honour the referendum result. What lying bastards these people are. When the new Government started to get into political difficulties, the once-principled Grieve saw his chance. He stopped saying he would respect the referendum result. He wanted us to stay in the customs union. He wanted a second referendum.

Most startling of all, he plotted to bypass all those rules and time-honoured procedures he used to say were so vital for our political safety.

After a secret meeting with the appallingly biased John Bercow, Grieve got that anti-Brexit Commons Speaker to chuck out centuries of accepted debating rules.

Propriety was smashed like plates at a Greek wedding. Legal advice was ignored.

This former Attorney General’s campaign against Brexit, which will next week see him and a minority of MPs attempt to remove law-making from the elected Government, took on a wild, crazed aspect.

With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy is that he likes foreigners a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

All along, it seems, his loyalties were not to a rules-based system but to the blue flag of a European Union that is now, increasingly, our rival and our deadly threat

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:16 pm

Any body shocked that despite me quoting regularly from varied sources such as the Independent, Guardian, Politico, Mirror, Express, Spectator , New Statesman and the BBC.

Lancaster Claret cowers away from trying to defend fellow plotter against democracy, Dominic Grieve, and his treacherous parallel talks, with French officials. Instead, zooms in on the source that reveals why such a duplicitous , democracy denying cock roach, is acting in such a Machiavelian way.

Stay blinkered, Lancaster Claret

Attacking me makes you feel better. No bother. Getting attacked on the internet is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Won't get your Brexit though

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:21 pm

Murger wrote:What's the difference between Farage 'colluding' with EU officials and people like Dominic Grieve having meetings with French officials?

The former was democratically elected on a manifesto that pledged to leave the European Union. He's doing everything he can to honour the mandate that pledge gave him.

The latter was democratically elected on a manifesto that pledged to leave the European Union. He's doing everything he can to indermine and usurp the mandate that pledge gave him.

The latter has a special place in hell reserved for him

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:24 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Attacking me makes you feel better. No bother. Getting attacked on the internet is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Won't get your Brexit though

I point out the reason why Grieve is behaving like he is. You dont defend him.

You attack me instead!

You can dish it. You can't take it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:27 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I point out the reason why Grieve is behaving like he is. You dont defend him.

You attack me instead!

You can dish it. You can't take it.

Can you switch back to your Elizabeth or Jakub persona please, it’s a lot less disagreeable. Yet again you join a thread and the standard of debate plummets (from an already low baseline).

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:33 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The former was democratically elected on a manifesto that pledged to leave the European Union. He's doing everything he can to honour the mandate that pledge gave him.

The latter was democratically elected on a manifesto that pledged to leave the European Union. He's doing everything he can to indermine and usurp the mandate that pledge gave him.

The latter has a special place in hell reserved for him

In the same way that manifesto promises are not legally binding, the Brexit Referendum result was not legally binding, it was advisory.

So legally Parliament can ignore the result, because parliament is sovereign.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:34 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Not sure.
Are they a bit like "non-binding" referenda?

The 1975 Common Market referendum was "non-binding"

The result was, however, enacted.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:34 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I get you are annoyed btw, but this is what you get when you don't try to push a unilateral 52% only through.

Its not too late for a compromise that means we leave the EU but don't ignore the 48%.

Up to the MPs to take it.

You'd be happy pushing through the 52% if it was something going in your favour though yeah?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:35 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:That's why I said about 50 / 50.
It depends how many ERG members will hold their noses and vote for it in order to "get us out" and then negotiate from there, and how many Labour MPs might be prepared to join them if they conclude it's May's deal or no brexit.

I wonder how many of those in the ERG view May's deal as worse than remaining?

It's also a good question for the leavers on here. Assuming that no deal isn't and never will be an option, how many of you think remaining as a full EU member is better than May's shabby deal?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:36 pm

Cryssys wrote:In the same way that manifesto promises are not legally binding, the Brexit Referendum result was not legally binding, it was advisory.

So legally Parliament can ignore the result, because parliament is sovereign.

The 1975 Common Market referendum was "non-binding"

The result was, however, enacted.

Can you point to a referendum result in British history that has not been implamented.?

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:40 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The 1975 Common Market referendum was "non-binding"

The result was, however, enacted.

Can you point to a referendum result in British history that has not been implamented.?

There have only been three UK referendums. Two out of three ain't bad.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:42 pm

martin_p wrote:Can you switch back to your Elizabeth or Jakub persona please, it’s a lot less disagreeable. Yet again you join a thread and the standard of debate plummets (from an already low baseline).

You claimed you had evidence that ending free movement of people would not help to prevent people trafficking , exploitation and modern day slavery.

You never provided it!

I asked the simple question - " did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum?"

You said "no"

I predicted John Bercow would have a pivotal role in the thwarting of the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed.

You disagreed and said he cannot pick and choose what goes through Parliament

I've been proven right yet again. And now you've been reduced to going off on some bizarre tangent!

Keep huffing, puffing and stamping those little trotters Marty!

It makes me proving you wrong even sweeter!

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:44 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The 1975 Common Market referendum was "non-binding"

The result was, however, enacted.

Can you point to a referendum result in British history that has not been implamented.?

It's also worth noting that the result on that occasion was conclusively in favour by a majority of 2:1 (67% for, 33% against)

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:46 pm

(Can you point to a referendum result in British history that has not been implamented.?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scot ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed. "

Strangley very similar numbers to a certain ref just a few years ago.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:47 pm

Cryssys wrote:There have only been three UK referendums. Two out of three ain't bad.

I didn't say "uk referenda"

I said in " British history"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referen ... ed_Kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope this helps.

And if you think that not implementing the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed "ain't bad".

You have an worrying attitude to democracy .

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:47 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:I wonder how many of those in the ERG view May's deal as worse than remaining?

It's also a good question for the leavers on here. Assuming that no deal isn't and never will be an option, how many of you think remaining as a full EU member is better than May's shabby deal?

That's a pertinent question and ultimately this is what might sway MP'S when it comes to the crunch,me personally i think it's a terrible deal,even without all the backstop stuff,and don't forget this is just the WA,heaven knows what the trade talks are going to involve,does that mean i'd prefer to remain probably not,which is why i'll abstain if a 2nd ref involves choosing between May's deal and remain,both keep the UK under the thumb of the EU.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:49 pm

SonofPog wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scot ... referendum

" The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed. "

Strangley very similar numbers to a certain ref just a few years ago.

There was preset criteria .

The 2016 referendum had no such parameters.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:51 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:I wonder how many of those in the ERG view May's deal as worse than remaining?

It's also a good question for the leavers on here. Assuming that no deal isn't and never will be an option, how many of you think remaining as a full EU member is better than May's shabby deal?

There is indeed a possibility of that, but it depends on what trade and other arrangements follow on from May's deal. For example, those wanting control of migration won't be happy if the new trade deal ties us to unlimited migration again under a new guise. I personally would view the Labour Customs Union membership plan as worse than remaining because it is only worth leaving if we can strike a new path outside EU regulations in areas where we don't particularly trade with the EU.

So no, I don't think it is worse than remaining but it could prove to be worse than remaining in the coming years, in which case Brexiteers will claim we didn't really leave and Remainers will claim we were wrong to leave, everyone will be unhappy with it.

The key now is who the PM is going to be to negotiate the trade deal. I would personally (ducks for cover) go for Gove. I do think that morally after this farce it has to be a Brexiteer.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:53 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:You claimed you had evidence that ending free movement of people would not help to prevent people trafficking , exploitation and modern day slavery.

You never provided it!

I asked the simple question - " did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum?"

You said "no"

I predicted John Bercow would have a pivotal role in the thwarting of the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed.

You disagreed and said he cannot pick and choose what goes through Parliament

I've been proven right yet again. And now you've been reduced to going off on some bizarre tangent!

Keep huffing, puffing and stamping those little trotters Marty!

It makes me proving you wrong even sweeter!

I’m not responding to you misquoting me and taking out of context, there’s no point, but I’m glad you haven’t denied the obvious multiple personas.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:58 pm

summitclaret wrote:Really?

Davies, johnson and Raab resigned because they disagreed with the way brexit was being handled. The likes of Sourby Hammond greening etc have made it impossible. If anything may has sided with remain as her deal makes it almost impossible ro leave the CU.

Thanks for the response. I looked up the resignation letters of Davis, Johnson and Raab, and none mentioned resistance from remain supporting fellow MPs. Of the ones you mention, Hammond is the only one in a significant post, however although he's opposed a no-deal brexit - which is him expressing his opinion - he doesn't seem to have taken steps to stop brexit (or as you've written, "made it impossible") and indeed he made a lot of money ready for the government to prepare for a no deal outcome.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:03 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote: And if you think that not implementing the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed "ain't bad".

You have an worrying attitude to democracy .

Coming from someone whose attitude throughout this debate has been a dictatorial: we won, you lost, shut up! You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your democratic credentials too seriously. 48.1% of those who voted wanted to remain.

Democracy means they have right to oppose Brexit. Given how close the result was and that it was non binding I do not believe that democracy has been compromised.

Put it another way, if the result had 52:48 for remaining would you have just accepted it and said nothing? Somehow I think not.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

martin_p wrote:I’m not responding to you misquoting me and taking out of context, there’s no point, but I’m glad you haven’t denied the obvious multiple personas.

Oh dear. You genuinely think I could be arsed to log in and out Turtle Style (he's openly admitted he had multiple log ins) for whatever conspiratorial reason your warped mind can muster up!?

Well you've surpassed yourself.

Add this paranoid delusion to your fast growing list of getting it wrong!

Free movement / people trafficking evidence.

Labour MPs voting for eu referendum/ yes or no

Bercow not being able to pick and choose.

Ringo is using different names!

There's only one poster name that's proved you wrong time and time again - Ringo McCartney.

Squirm on Marty!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:12 pm

Cryssys wrote:Coming from someone whose attitude throughout this debate has been a dictatorial: we won, you lost, shut up! You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your democratic credentials too seriously. 48.1% of those who voted wanted to remain.

Democracy means they have right to oppose Brexit. Given how close the result was and that it was non binding I do not believe that democracy has been compromised.

Put it another way, if the result had 52:48 for remaining would you have just accepted it and said nothing? Somehow I think not.

Unless you enact the result of the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed. You're not being democratic.

You're paying lip service to it.

android · Post by **android** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:20 pm

No question that Bercow is meddling to suit his agenda.

Outrageous that he has chosen the Bryant amendment seeking to prevent May's deal being tabled again. Only reason to do this would be fear that it may well pass if tabled again as the wire approaches.

Bercow certainly seems to be dancing to the tune of Benn, Cooper and Grieve.

Yes, credit it where it is due for the open minded - Ringo was right about this all along.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:22 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I get you are annoyed btw, but this is what you get when you don't try to push a unilateral 52% only through.

Its not too late for a compromise that means we leave the EU but don't ignore the 48%.

Up to the MPs to take it.

I presume if the referendum had been 52% in favour of Remain, you would equally have been pushing for something like May's deal on the grounds of not ignoring the 48% who wanted to leave? Or would you?

I would have thought that if 52% had voted Remain, we would have carried on on the same terms with no concession at all to the 48%. Don't you agree?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:29 pm

Last night in the voting lobby we saw a former Attorney General who stood on a Tory manifesto, that pledged to leave the European Union, voting along side a woman still tagged following her release from prison. Both voting to undermine the UK Governments negotiating position by attempting to stop a " no deal"

Never has there been such a Rotten Parliament.

Save from a few on both sides of the house, a plague on all their duplicitous and anti democratic houses.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Labour didn't win. Their Manifesto never got enacted. If the Tories don't enact their Manifesto then that's their fault.

It's cute that you now give a **** about manifesto promises though. Makes a change for you right-wingers.

Have a word with aggi.

He claimed that the losing parties manifestos were put into laws and legislation.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:34 pm

aggi wrote:I think you may have forgotten that Labour didn't commit to that:

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union

Have a word with the Turtles Head about losing parties manifestos being implemented!

For once he's right and you were wrong. Again.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:36 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Unless you enact the result of the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed. You're not being democratic.

You're paying lip service to it.

It was an advisory referendum. Given how close the result was it would be undemocratic to ignore the views of those who voted to remain. The deal on offer meets some, not all, of the wishes of those who wanted to leave. It's a compromise. You get some of what you asked for but not everything. Did you really expect it to be anything else?

What we have at the moment is a group of people who think that they should get everything they wanted and that those who disagree with them are being undemocratic. That’s a dictatorship.