Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Lowbankclaret]

Apart from the 100 billion bill for being allowed an extension.

[Damo]

For God's sake...THEIR!

If we are going to spell check people, then my 5 year old son wants a word with you

IMG_20190318_202724.jpg (939.89 KiB) Viewed 2208 times

[Lancasterclaret]

But we only have ourselves to blame for believing that the stuff that Colburn et al are still coming out with.

People are still saying they need us more than we need them. I mean, come on, we need EU trade for our economy. You cannot change our geographic location however much you believe.

[South West Claret.]

Trade deal.

Thanks but not sure what he's doing making deals when we are still in the EU.

[South West Claret.]

Trade deal.

Have you got a link please.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thanks but not sure what he doing making deals when we are still in the EU.

They roll over when we leave, which is perfectly sensible.

Need more of them asap mind!

[summitclaret]

Hmmm...

Third vote on May's deal not allowed by the speaker
May attends European council summit on Thursday
May cannot ask for short technical extension because her deal hasn't been passed
May cannot ask for longer extension because she hasn't got any reason for one
EU have no choice but to confirm that Article 50 cannot be extended
We leave the EU on March 29th on WTO trade terms

I
I am not comfortable with that outcome because of the potential effect on people
However if it happened it would be due to the remainer establishment's tactics.

[evensteadiereddie]

Win, win.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think if you agree that a "No Deal" is a bad outcome for everybody, then its very hard to rule out an extension.

But who knows to be honest?

Its working out far worse than anybody thought it was going to thats for sure.

[bluelabrador16]

CrossTalk: Brexit On Life Support

"The Brexit saga continues. The deeply divided British House of Commons can only seem to agree on one thing: It doesn’t want the UK to leave the EU without a deal. The problem is - there isn’t a parliamentary majority on what to do next. Maybe this was Theresa May’s plan all along – Brexit death through inertia.

CrossTalking with Renaud Girard, George Galloway, and Alan Sked."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5K-GzYG57Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

24.47

970 Comments

..."This French guy is exactly why we voted to leave. Infuriating

...Oh please, he was the only sane person on the panel. The British duo embarrassed themselves. A great Crosstalk - exposed the British lies nicely.

...Democracy is being overturned in the UK by the political elite. The EU is like a sinking ship and the sooner we leave the better.

...French guy cant say anything when paris is on fire every weekend ..

...Over 2 years to figure out"

etc

[dsr]

But we only have ourselves to blame for believing that the stuff that Colburn et al are still coming out with.

People are still saying they need us more than we need them. I mean, come on, we need EU trade for our economy. You cannot change our geographic location however much you believe.

Trade does not stop because there are tariffs.

Our export prices go up by average 3% because of tariffs. They go up and down by far more because of changed in exchange rates. Business can cope.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Just believe...

[martin_p]

Trade does not stop because there are tariffs.

Our export prices go up by average 3% because of tariffs. They go up and down by far more because of changed in exchange rates. Business can cope.

Why do you persist in using a completely misleading average. Averages are meaningless to the business who’s goods are attracting a much higher tariff.

[aggi]

Trade does not stop because there are tariffs.

Our export prices go up by average 3% because of tariffs. They go up and down by far more because of changed in exchange rates. Business can cope.

And the non-tariff barriers? The equivalence of qualifications, oversight, regulations, etc? Will they not have any impact? Will the banking, insurance, legal, etc sectors be fine when there's no agreed equivalence?

[Devils_Advocate]

......Day 3 of the "Where's Wally" march......
Only 57 survivors "remain" on the Gammonball Run but boy are they a diverse cross section of the British public
Wally Farage is still MIA as concern escalates for his well being amongst the troops
The March makes its way into Swainby today - a nothing little place that no one cares about or takes any notice of - so a very apt location for this "event"

[aggi]

Trade does not stop because there are tariffs.

Our export prices go up by average 3% because of tariffs. They go up and down by far more because of changed in exchange rates. Business can cope.

And obviously agriculture would be ****** but hey ho.

[martin_p]

......Day 3 of the "Where's Wally" march......
Only 57 survivors "remain" on the Gammonball Run but boy are they a diverse cross section of the British public
Wally Farage is still MIA as concern escalates for his well being amongst the troops
The March makes its way into Swainby today - a nothing little place that no one cares about or takes any notice of - so a very apt location for this "event"

It’s certainly showing the strength of feeling there is about the usurpers of democracy stealing the Brexit that everyone wanted.

[Lancasterclaret]

You are not doing yourself or your cause any favours there dsr.

You know its going to have an effect, which is why we have to do all we can do to minimise it.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

If we are going to spell check people, then my 5 year old son wants a word with you

IMG_20190318_202724.jpg

Ooooh! That's a very old version! Notice the incorrect use of "it's" and "might" instead of "mighty".

Collector's item

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I
I am not comfortable with that outcome because of the potential effect on people
However if it happened it would be due to the remainer establishment's tactics.

Why is this a remainer tactic? You can't spam the same legislation until it passes, there's a Parliamentary law stating that.

I feel sorry for the DUP meself, they and May were probably just putting the finishing touches on another fat bribe like the last billion.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

It’s certainly showing the strength of feeling there is about the usurpers of democracy stealing the Brexit that everyone wanted.

I'm personally inspired by all the children and young folk who have turned up for it.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

"The only means, therefore, by which a negative vote can be revoked is by proposing another question similar in its general purport to that which has been rejected but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question".

She's lucky she got two votes.

[Colburn_Claret]

Siri, show me a post when people realise they are not getting the Brexit they dreamed of.

As I said, you wouldn't answer

Gutless

[dsr]

You are not doing yourself or your cause any favours there dsr.

You know its going to have an effect, which is why we have to do all we can do to minimise it.

All we can, without limit? You are quite happy that the EU can afford to sacrifice the cost of abandoning free trade because the political principle is more important = and their principle is the unprincipled principle that anyone who dares leave their "happy band" must be made to suffer. And yet we have a political principle at stake as well, and our principle is that Parliament is (or should be) responsible to the people who elect them, and not the other way round. And you won't for a moment envisage subscribing to that principle.

And why not? Because for you, it's all about the money.

As for having an effect, yes it will. I am an advocate for free trade; so are you. But you seem to think that since both sides will suffer by the absence of free trade with the EU, it's the UK's job to pay the costs for both sides. I disagree; the EU can pay its own costs for abandoning free trade with the UK, since that is its own choice. And the question is still there - if this misleading 3% on tariffs is to hit hard across the sector - and as you accurately repeated what I said, some sectors will be hit harder, others will not even have the 3% - then will the effect be as devastating as (say) the 20% across the board cost of exports when the pound rose in value by 20% between 2013 and 2016? That wasn't an average. That affected all exports. And yet in that period, exports remained steady - they did not drop. Business can cope with the odd 3%.

What business doesn't like, of course, is uncertainty. You have been telling us that since for ever. And here is a chance to abolish the uncertainty, so make the decision, to realise that the EU will not make a sensible deal so we might as well go now. And all of a sudden, uncertainty isn't so bad -not when compared with the 3% tariff and the change of paperwork. It's "Let's prolong the uncertainty for as long as we can", now.

[Colburn_Claret]

But we only have ourselves to blame for believing that the stuff that Colburn et al are still coming out with.

People are still saying they need us more than we need them. I mean, come on, we need EU trade for our economy. You cannot change our geographic location however much you believe.

I know you've shown you aren't very bright but we will trade with the EU whether we are in the EU or out.
Just like every other country in the world.

It's all about trade, yes.
We are a market place for them. They want us to buy their goods and products. In what fantasy world do you imagine the French and Germans saying we aren't selling you anything anymore.
OR in this fantasy world of yours do you imagine that we keep buying their goods while they refuse to buy ours.....
We may only be 1/27th of the countries in Europe, but we represent a hell of a lot more than that in terms of trade.

Enlighten me so that I can understand how this phenomena of Brexit harms us, but has no effect on Europe.
Theresa May is as spineless as you she should have took the advice of Donald Trump and given them an offer of what we wanted and stood firm. It's too late now the boat had gone, but it could have been so much better. As a last resort leaving with No deal is still not the end of the world, because even with a No deal, we'll still be ******* trading with Europe. The only thing that changes is the terms of the trading, not the trading.

[AndrewJB]

A I've seen on another post on this thread that MPs did vote on whether to hold a referendum. It wasnt denounced by anybody, because in their arrogance they believed they'd win.

B those red lines are Brexit, without them there is no Brexit, so it cant have been done to appease ERG. If we didn't have those red lines it would be just a watered down remain. I'd add that if those red lines are crossed then the public haven't got what they voted for.

C we've had 2 votes already on TMs crap deal. If they wanted a soft Brexit, they couldn't have a got a better deal if the EU had written it themselves, which they may well have done. So why won't the remainers back it. Because there isn't any deal that would suit them. They want a second referendum whatever the cost to democracy .

D this one is the daftest of all, but I'll explain it again as you obviously ignored previous posts.
Where is the EU manifesto. Where is their plan for the next 5 years. Where is the alternative manifesto, so that people can decide which route they'd prefer to take. There isn't one of course.
So what does Brussels parliament vote on? They vote on proposals. Not proposals that come from MEPs, because they aren't allowed to make proposals. The proposals are written by the European Commissioners. The European Commissioners are Selected, not Elected. They dont have to pass a test on where they see Europe going, they dont have to fight for their seat against alternative candidates, they are just Selected. In my belief on their desire for a United States of Europe, but whether you buy that or not, it still isn't democratic.
So they have their agenda, make their proposals, and MEPs vote on them. BUT if it gets voted down it doesn't matter. They just do what they did with Ireland and Holland over the Lisbon treaty, reword it and get them to vote for the same thing again, and again, until its passed.
The MEPs by the way, who have perks and payments that the HOC couldn't even dream of. Over 10,000 people in Brussels earn more than our PM. That's pay not counting the perks.

There is no way that anybody can call that democracy.
No policy or manifesto, no alternatives, an agenda set by an unelected body. It might as well be Communist Russia.

E the ministers for Brexit have been working with one hand tied behind their back, it's why so many have quit, and why we've had so many in such a short period of time.

B - if those red lines had been insisted on before the referendum - as in "this is what leaving will look like", then I don't think leave would have won. Norway isn't a member of the EU, and nor are Switzerland or Iceland - though the kind of Brexit some are now advocating goes well beyond the relationships those countries have with the EU. We voted to leave, but not to brick up the channel tunnel.

C - I think many MPs found May's deal too extreme, and so didn't back it. If you can understand why MPs who thought her deal wasn't extreme enough didn't back it, but weren't trying to wreck brexit; then you should be able to understand why MPs who thought it was too extreme didn't back it, but weren't trying to wreck brexit.

D - All members of the EU have to be democracies - along with a whole raft of things like rights and freedoms that we don't normally associate with dictatorships. When a member even shows signs of authoritarianism (as Poland and Hungary have in recent years), the EU can take action that can lead to throwing them out. A group of democracies together does not make a dictatorship. Commissioners might not be elected, but the national governments that put them forward are. And any legislation proposed by commissioners has to be passed by the EU parliament (and then by national parliaments). I'm not sure why the EU should have a manifesto, but the political parties that contest EU elections all do, as do the groupings the various parties form together within the parliament. If you want to see plans for where people see the EU going in five years there's plenty online.

E - David Davis was brexit minister for just under two years, and during that time achieved very little. Rather than negotiating with an arm tied behind his back, he was hardly at the negotiating table at all. Not exactly leading from the front. And lets not forget the fifty-something areas of detailed economic analysis - that when he was asked for it turned out not to exist at all. And then we had Dominic Raab, who resigned because he was unhappy with the deal he himself had negotiated. At the same time you had Liam Fox as Trade Secretary, and Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary - both staunch leavers. So again, how is it remainer MPs have sabotaged brexit?

[dsr]

E - David Davis was brexit minister for just under two years, and during that time achieved very little. Rather than negotiating with an arm tied behind his back, he was hardly at the negotiating table at all. Not exactly leading from the front. And lets not forget the fifty-something areas of detailed economic analysis - that when he was asked for it turned out not to exist at all. And then we had Dominic Raab, who resigned because he was unhappy with the deal he himself had negotiated. At the same time you had Liam Fox as Trade Secretary, and Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary - both staunch leavers. So again, how is it remainer MPs have sabotaged brexit?

Have you asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why preparations for Brexit were so inadequate that (he claims) we can't physically leave on March 29th? He has been briefing, and working, against Theresa May since he took power. I have no idea how he is still in a job, except that May is no longer even a lame duck Prime Minister - she's a dead duck. Can you imagine if Ian Woan disagreed with Sean Dyche and so started taking training differently and saying different things at press conferences - how long would he be in a job? Not long. May is a cipher.

[nil_desperandum]

Have you asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why preparations for Brexit were so inadequate that (he claims) we can't physically leave on March 29th?

Surely you'd have to ask either the Minister for Exiting the EU or the PM to answer this question?
Why would you ask Hammond? It's not his department. He can only deal with the hand he is dealt.

[dsr]

Surely you'd have to ask either the Minister for Exiting the EU or the PM to answer this question?
Why would you ask Hammond? It's not his department. He can only deal with the hand he is dealt.

You don't think allocating funds is part of the Chancellor's job? We'd have to differ on that one.

[AndrewJB]

We'd be scraping the barrel pinning all the brexit screwups on Hammond. Boris Johnson was equally (if not more) badly behaved toward Theresa May while he was Foreign Secretary, and got to keep his job. How Chris Grayling has managed to hang on too, would be a head scratcher, if we didn't all know May is able to exert little authority over her MPs. There's an excellent radio documentary on Radio 4 called "The Brexit Prime Minister" - which looks at the journey from her perspective, and those around her.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

The idea of Theresa May's that she could keep bringing the same, unchanged deal back to Parliament until it was wearily waved through as she ran down the clock was pretty stupid and John Bercow was right to block her from doing it.

I don't know, it's almost as if the intelligent are fixing the mistake of the stupid somehow.

Funny that.

[Lancasterclaret]

All we can, without limit? You are quite happy that the EU can afford to sacrifice the cost of abandoning free trade because the political principle is more important = and their principle is the unprincipled principle that anyone who dares leave their "happy band" must be made to suffer. And yet we have a political principle at stake as well, and our principle is that Parliament is (or should be) responsible to the people who elect them, and not the other way round. And you won't for a moment envisage subscribing to that principle.

And why not? Because for you, it's all about the money.

As for having an effect, yes it will. I am an advocate for free trade; so are you. But you seem to think that since both sides will suffer by the absence of free trade with the EU, it's the UK's job to pay the costs for both sides. I disagree; the EU can pay its own costs for abandoning free trade with the UK, since that is its own choice. And the question is still there - if this misleading 3% on tariffs is to hit hard across the sector - and as you accurately repeated what I said, some sectors will be hit harder, others will not even have the 3% - then will the effect be as devastating as (say) the 20% across the board cost of exports when the pound rose in value by 20% between 2013 and 2016? That wasn't an average. That affected all exports. And yet in that period, exports remained steady - they did not drop. Business can cope with the odd 3%.

What business doesn't like, of course, is uncertainty. You have been telling us that since for ever. And here is a chance to abolish the uncertainty, so make the decision, to realise that the EU will not make a sensible deal so we might as well go now. And all of a sudden, uncertainty isn't so bad -not when compared with the 3% tariff and the change of paperwork. It's "Let's prolong the uncertainty for as long as we can", now.

I'm not even going to pretend that I'm an expert on tariffs and the impact they have dsr. All I know is what I've read about regarding the governments tariff plans in the event of a "No Deal" and even the people commenting on them say they need a lot more information till they can make any real, accurate predictions of the effects it will have.

All I'll say is that jobs are at risk, and its not just the UK governments job to make sure "the will of the people" is the only thing it worries about.

[Lancasterclaret]

I know you've shown you aren't very bright but we will trade with the EU whether we are in the EU or out.
Just like every other country in the world.

A bright person such as you claim to be might notice that I never said that we wouldn't. But reading what anyone who disagrees with you posts is most definitely not your strong point is it?

It's all about trade, yes.
We are a market place for them. They want us to buy their goods and products. In what fantasy world do you imagine the French and Germans saying we aren't selling you anything anymore.
OR in this fantasy world of yours do you imagine that we keep buying their goods while they refuse to buy ours.....
We may only be 1/27th of the countries in Europe, but we represent a hell of a lot more than that in terms of trade.

Enlighten me so that I can understand how this phenomena of Brexit harms us, but has no effect on Europe.
Theresa May is as spineless as you she should have took the advice of Donald Trump and given them an offer of what we wanted and stood firm. It's too late now the boat had gone, but it could have been so much better. As a last resort leaving with No deal is still not the end of the world, because even with a No deal, we'll still be ******* trading with Europe. The only thing that changes is the terms of the trading, not the trading.

Again, never said we weren't. You've taken all that from my two line post? Its almost like you just want to spout off. Spout away!

Of course there will still be trade. But we need to minimise the implications of our decision to leave so that our economy is not damaged as that translates into minimal impact on peoples everyday lives.

And its nice to see that 10 days before we leave, Brexiteers are still essentially arguing "they need us more than we need them". A bright person would have noticed thats not true now. A bloke who refuses to understand that he's wrong wouldn't.

The EU is going to take a hit, but its spread over 27 countries (amazingly the ones closest to us will take a bigger hit than those that our further away! Who would have thought it eh? Distance is relevant on trade!) and they have been planning for a "No Deal" a lot longer than we have. Its impossible not to draw the conclusion that they could look at this problem and realise that it wouldn't end well, whatever they did, and make plans accordingly.

We, in our arrogance and backed up a sizeable chunk of the electorate revelling in that, have clearly not.

[JohnMcGreal]

As for having an effect, yes it will. I am an advocate for free trade; so are you. But you seem to think that since both sides will suffer by the absence of free trade with the EU, it's the UK's job to pay the costs for both sides. I disagree; the EU can pay its own costs for abandoning free trade with the UK, since that is its own choice.

Are you being serious? We already have frictionless free trade with the EU, and we've decided to roll that back for our own reasons (mainly to reduce immigration and sign our own trade deals). This is entirely the UK's choice.

The problem here is that you and many others were convinced that we could keep the same benefits of membership with none of the costs, because we're Great Britain, and they'll be bending over backwards for us. That myth (along with many others) turned to dust the moment it made contact with reality.

Rather than lashing out at the EU, perhaps it's time you accepted that what you were sold in the referendum was actually an undeliverable fantasy. Maybe turn your ire on the snake oil salesmen who mis-sold Brexit to the electorate in the first place.

[AndrewJB]

Are you being serious? We already have frictionless free trade with the EU, and we've decided to roll that back for our own reasons (mainly to reduce immigration and sign our own trade deals). This is entirely the UK's choice.

The problem here is that you and many others were convinced that we could keep the same benefits of membership with none of the costs, because we're Great Britain, and they'll be bending over backwards for us. That myth (along with many others) turned to dust the moment it made contact with reality.

Rather than lashing out at the EU, perhaps it's time you accepted that what you were sold in the referendum was actually an undeliverable fantasy. Maybe turn your ire on the snake oil salesmen who mis-sold Brexit to the electorate in the first place.

And rather than claiming without evidence that remainers have sabotaged Brexit, let’s be honest and admit that Brexit has been steered by leavers, and May’s deal is pretty much the best we could get without staying in the single market and customs union. Davis and Raab claim to have had differences with May, however considering the number of leavers who have quit, and the fact all they’ve brought forward as an alternative to May’s deal being leaving without a deal; how much of their resignations actually stemmed from the fact they could see Britain was bargaining from a much weaker position than they had imagined?

[martin_p]

You don't think allocating funds is part of the Chancellor's job? We'd have to differ on that one.

It is, but he just doesn’t offer money up, it’s got to be asked for by each department with a plan showing how they are going to spend it. So unless you believe that Davis asked for the money but was refused (and that fact hasn’t leaked) then the only conclusion is that Davis didn’t ask his department to do any serious planning for no deal and therefore no funding was requested.

[dsr]

I'm not even going to pretend that I'm an expert on tariffs and the impact they have dsr. All I know is what I've read about regarding the governments tariff plans in the event of a "No Deal" and even the people commenting on them say they need a lot more information till they can make any real, accurate predictions of the effects it will have.

All I'll say is that jobs are at risk, and its not just the UK governments job to make sure "the will of the people" is the only thing it worries about.

You need more information than you can possibly get before making accurate predictions about the economy. Hammond in his pre-budget speech said that he has got £22bn more than expected to spend on tax cuts - that's an error of close to 3% of Britain's government spending, predicted over a single year. It's like predicting next month's weather - may be right, but don't count on it.

So a reliable prediction of future finances when conditions trade is not going to happen. It can't.

[nil_desperandum]

You don't think allocating funds is part of the Chancellor's job? We'd have to differ on that one.

And you happen to know how much he's been asked for an how much he's refused (or given)?
If Grayling is anything to go by, then he hasn't been particulary mean or prudent.
Edit:
Martin explains this perfectly above in 4189

[CrosspoolClarets]

I see we are all still discussing trade, but surely by now everyone can see the truth - that short term we would take a hit from leaving Death Star orbit, and some of our trading partners would take a hit too, and no deal would simply exaggerate the effect of that hit. That all seems very clear.

Longer term, the geopolitical element and how it affects trade is unclear. We may be better out. We may be better in. It all depends. Without doubt if the U.K. were to make a success of a free trading style, the EU would come under incredible pressure with within to be less protectionist itself, boosting world trade.

The non-economic elements are also clear. Many value the nation state in a similar way to how they view family - the glue that gives comfort to our lives and binds us together. Burnley fans, and the way we feel about the Clarets, should understand that. Some of us believe that nation state sovereignty will give our lives better meaning, others think it won’t. Again, it can’t be argued, it is just different mindsets.

If I let all the above 3 paragraphs wash over me, it tells me that I would prefer a deal, but that there are limits. Self respect and patriotism would push me to no deal if things start getting silly or condescending. We would after all manage quite well after the initial bump. We are very, very close to that point. I can see the Brexiteer MPs dilemma.

[Lord Beamish]

I see we are all still discussing trade, but surely by now everyone can see the truth - that short term we would take a hit from leaving Death Star orbit, and some of our trading partners would take a hit too, and no deal would simply exaggerate the effect of that hit. That all seems very clear.

Longer term, the geopolitical element and how it affects trade is unclear. We may be better out. We may be better in. It all depends. Without doubt if the U.K. were to make a success of a free trading style, the EU would come under incredible pressure with within to be less protectionist itself, boosting world trade.

The non-economic elements are also clear. Many value the nation state in a similar way to how they view family - the glue that gives comfort to our lives and binds us together. Burnley fans, and the way we feel about the Clarets, should understand that. Some of us believe that nation state sovereignty will give our lives better meaning, others think it won’t. Again, it can’t be argued, it is just different mindsets.

If I let all the above 3 paragraphs wash over me, it tells me that I would prefer a deal, but that there are limits. Self respect and patriotism would push me to no deal if things start getting silly or condescending. We would after all manage quite well after the initial bump. We are very, very close to that point. I can see the Brexiteer MPs dilemma.

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebt to CrosspoolClarets for stating what needed to be said. I am particulary glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

[martin_p]

The non-economic elements are also clear. Many value the nation state in a similar way to how they view family - the glue that gives comfort to our lives and binds us together. Burnley fans, and the way we feel about the Clarets, should understand that. Some of us believe that nation state sovereignty will give our lives better meaning, others think it won’t. Again, it can’t be argued, it is just different mindsets.

Interesting you should use Burnley as an example as you still manage to have the feelings you do about the club without it having complete ‘sovereignty’ over its affairs. We’re a member of a larger organisation with other clubs. That organisation defines how much money we can spend, what we can have in our ground and when we play our games as well as a raft of other things.

[Erasmus]

I think you have summed it up very well there, Crosspool. The division lies in what we see as what is best for our country. I would say that I am a pragmatist in terms of ideology and I want to see tangible benefits for the people of this country, particularly those most in need. My patriotism is not much affected by this idea of a nation state, but I can understand and sympathise with that point of view provided it is not pushed too far. I also think your comparison to supporting Burnley is very apt, but here I notice what my son is always telling me about my happiness and distress over our results. It is completely irrational.

[claret2018]

Face it lads, it's not happening is it.

[RingoMcCartney]

Keep quoting it, keep cut and pasting and still you are wrong. What was the vote result - “The Act was passed by 316 - 53 on 7th September 2015”

I have Hansard and you have Chris Mason!!

I’m right and you are wrong. Look at the EVIDENCE Ringo

8 o'clock on Saturday evening and your busy getting your knickers in a twist and refusing to accept both reality and the fact you're unable to comprehend a basic simple question!

The question was-

Did the vast majority of labour MPs VOTE to have an eu referendum? Yes Or No?

You answered - "No"

It's an historic fact that this happened on June 9th 2015

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"MPs have overwhelmingly backed plans for a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. 

The VOTE , which followed the first debate on the EU Referendum Bill, means the legislation moves to the next stage of its progress through Parliament.

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said a "generation" had been denied a say on the UK's place in Europe, and the public must now have the "final say".

MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the bill."

Your laughable attempt to belatedly add some kind of criteria to that basic simple question is hysterical!

You may be clinging on to Hansard for a later vote on a vain attempt to avoid being shown to be wrong. But the bottom line is the question was -


The question was-

Did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum? Yes Or No?

You answered - "No"

It's an historic fact that this happened on June 9th 2015

There should be clues in the above words "MPs "VOTED" and MPs OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED but somehow given your mutton headed attitude to fly in the face of reality I doubt it's going to make you admit that it should have been a "Yes" instead of a "no"

Keep trying though. God loves a trier!

Real World 1. Burnley, "English wasn't my strongest subject" Ace 0

[evensteadiereddie]

[martin_p]

I think we should play a little Ringo Wrongo Bingo. You have to get Wrongo to cut and paste one of his previous answers, insisting he’s right, bonus points for Wrongo LOLs, double points if he ends his post with a ‘score’.

[RingoMcCartney]

Bercow , Monday 18th March - using Precedent from 1604.

On January 9, 2018 the Speaker of the House allowed a Government motion on the meaningful vote to be amended by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

The amendment meant the Government was forced to return to the Commons to explain how it intended to proceed with Brexit three days after losing its meaningful vote.

However, the amendment angered Brexiteers as the amendment was made on a motion which precedent stated was unamendable.

Mr Bercow said at the time he would not be "guided by precedent”.

He said: “If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change.”

In October 2018 I said that John Bercow was being kept in place in order to "help stop brexit" as Margaret Beckett and Emily Thornbury had both shamelessly admitted on the BBC. Despite his position bring seen as untenable by almost everybody else following the QC lead independent parliamentary inquiry into bullying in Westminster. "A fish rots from its head" .....

I predicted his role would be "pivotal"

As with most things brexit related, I've been proven correct.

[martin_p]

Bercow , Monday 18th March - using Precedent from 1604.

On January 9, 2018 the Speaker of the House allowed a Government motion on the meaningful vote to be amended by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

The amendment meant the Government was forced to return to the Commons to explain how it intended to proceed with Brexit three days after losing its meaningful vote.

However, the amendment angered Brexiteers as the amendment was made on a motion which precedent stated was unamendable.

Mr Bercow said at the time he would not be "guided by precedent”.

He said: “If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change.”

In October 2018 I said that John Bercow was being kept in place in order to "help stop brexit" as Margaret Beckett and Emily Thornbury had both shameless admitted on the BBC. Despite his position bring seen as untenable by almost everybody else following the QC lead independent parliamentary inquiry into bullying in Westminster. "A fish rots from its head" .....

I predicted his role would be "pivotal"

As with most things brexit related, I've been proven correct.

Hey, I’m claiming that. Point to me!

[evensteadiereddie]

[TVC15]

Hey, I’m claiming that. Point to me!

What have you started ?!!
This game could end up outliving Brexit