Project fear aka pure political fantasy..

[Pstotto]

I have a Brexit conspiracy theory that may be a political fantasy with a football twist: The England team were ordered by the government to lose to Iceland to destroy the morale of the Brexit momentum. When I watched the players and their looks, it looked a fix.

[RingoMcCartney]

I said parts of it had been. Which is very clearly the case because they were in the manifesto and are now law, regardless of who did it.

This is you aggi.

You're saying , literally parts of the LibDems manifesto being put into law.

You are literally saying it

[BennyD]

Terminal stupidity?

You misunderstand his position; he voted leave not stay.

[aggi]

This is you aggi.

You're saying , literally parts of the LibDems manifesto being put into law.

You are literally saying it

Er, where did I say the Lib Dems enacted it. You're just looking a bit desperate now (or fundamentally don't understand the point).

[RingoMcCartney]

Er, where did I say the Lib Dems enacted it. You're just looking a bit desperate now (or fundamentally don't understand the point).

Says the king of desperation!!!

The point is as you just can't get into your thick skull. Is that its political opportunism. Not the losing side enacting part it's manifesto. In a single issue referendum. You can't bloody do it!!!

But you keep wriggling. I'm heading for a second 3.0 in two days. Straight through to the knock out stages for me! !!!

[UpTheBeehole]

Can you find proof to support you Ringo?

I mean it should be pretty easy

[aggi]

So just to conclude this sorry episode, you can't find anything where I said the Lib Dems enacted it.

[RingoMcCartney]

So just to conclude this sorry episode, you can't find anything where I said the Lib Dems enacted it.

Let's have a recap aggi.

And fret ye not. I can bump it all back up from the other thread!

I was replying to Keighley Claret who said why should the Remain side shut up after the referendum. Cos after a general election the opposition doesn't pack up if they lose.

I pointed out he shouldn't compare the two. And pointed out that only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation. The losing side is binned.

Then you, like an unthinking, loose cannon, gave examples of parts Lib dems manifesto that had been enacted into law and legislation.

I said this wasn't an example of the losing sides manifesto being put into law and legislation. It was political opportunism.

Since then you've claimed you didn't say the LibDems manifesto had been put into law and legislation. Then I prove you did!!!

And latterly your clinging onto to bare faced lie that there was no criteria that specified who put the LibDems manifesto into law.

Not only do you STILL fail to grasp the difference between political opportunism and parliamentart rules being breached. But you're now trying to say the basis on which I made my original and many many subsequent posts was. Which was only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation. I clearly and absolutely and utterly did!!!!

Now if you want me to go back,for the 2nd time now, to show you up for lying through your teeth. Then I'm happy to oblige.

But for your own dignity, I'd settle for the 3.0 drubbing, that you're on the receiving end of, if I were you.

[martin_p]

Let's have a recap aggi.

And fret ye not. I can bump it all back up from the other thread!

I was replying to Keighley Claret who said why should the Remain side shut up after the referendum. Cos after a general election the opposition doesn't pack up if they lose.

I pointed out he shouldn't compare the two. And pointed out that only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation. The losing side is binned.

Then you, like an unthinking, loose cannon, gave examples of parts Lib dems manifesto that had been enacted into law and legislation.

I said this wasn't an example of the losing sides manifesto being put into law and legislation. It was political opportunism.

Since then you've claimed you didn't say the LibDems manifesto had been put into law and legislation. Then I prove you did!!!

And latterly your clinging onto to bare faced lie that there was no criteria that specified who put the LibDems manifesto into law.

Not only do you STILL fail to grasp the difference between political opportunism and parliamentart rules being breached. But you're now trying to say the basis on which I made my original and many many subsequent posts was. Which was only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation. I clearly and absolutely and utterly did!!!!

Now if you want me to go back,for the 2nd time now, to show you up for lying through your teeth. Then I'm happy to oblige.

But for your own dignity, I'd settle for the 3.0 drubbing, that you're on the receiving end of, if I were you.

What you fail to grasp is that the political opportunism you refer to is taking a policy from another party manifesto and acting on it. Badge it however you want, but there are still parts of the losing parties manifesto that are now being enacted by the government. It seems they are even prepared to raise taxes to fund the NHS, exactly what Labour said they’d do (for the well off at least).

[RingoMcCartney]

When presented with examples of the lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law your response was that doesn't count. Even though it is an example of lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law which you explicitly stated didn't happen..

This is you aggi saying "When presented with examples LibDems manifesto .....enacted into law!

This is you proving that you don't know the difference between political opportunism and parliamentary procedure being breached.

[RingoMcCartney]

Badge it however you want, but there are still parts of the losing parties manifesto that are now being enacted by the government. .

BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT.

NOT BY THE LOSING PARTIES. NOT BY THE LOSING PARTIES.

And there is the whole point!!!!

And with reference to a referendum which Keighley was trying to link. In a binary referendum. The government is mandated to enact the Leave vote. NOT THE LOSING SIDE!

It's not "badging it how I want" you joker. It's the fundamental principle of how British parliamentary democracy works for ***** sake.

The losing parties manifestos are binned. If the government want to make political capital out of Nicking ideas from other ideas thats POLITOCAL OPPORTUNISM.

I know you want to pretend there was "no criteria" as to who actually enacts law. Which I clearly did. But if I didn't point out that out it's absolutely crucial to parliamentary procedure and democracy would be over.
Why do you think I kept linking the parlimetery website that stated the winning parties manifesto is enacted in tolaw and legislation!!!!!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm glad the OP waited until Ringo was back to start this thread, makes it much more entertaining.

On the actual question, point 3 here in the Lib Dem manifesto http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39946809" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; End the 1% public sector pay cap seems to be what the Government announced here http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, it also appears that point 13 Levy up to 200% council tax on second homes is also something that the Government has announced https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consu ... pty-homes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It appears your whole argument was based on a complete lack of research and making stuff up.

Remember This corker aggi!?

[RingoMcCartney]

Ah, Ringo Stage 2. Changing the goalposts saying someone is being pedantic or just entirely ignoring what you've previously said and saying you meant something entirely different.

In case you forgot, you wrote: What part of Labour's manifesto, of the lib dems manifesto or the greens manifesto, has been, is or will be enacted into law?

Answer - non.

There all binned.

That's pretty explicit.

When presented with examples of the lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law your response was that doesn't count. Even though it is an example of lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law which you explicitly stated didn't happen.

I know you're not a big fan of evidence and facts and those kind of stupid things but at times you are probably just easiest to acknowledge that you're writing ******** rather than trying to weasel out of something so obvious.

This is you showing you've no idea what political opportunism Is!!!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

https://www.parliament.uk/education/abo ... -are-made/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember This aggi!!!!

This was the website I repeatedly linked for you to understand how parliamentary procedure and democracy works.

Proving absolutely that I was saying it DID matter who enacted laws!!!

Oh aggi!!!! You should have settled for a respectable 1.0

[Tall Paul]

I'm really looking forward to the day that Ringo rips off the mask and reveals that he's been on the wind up all the time.

[Bacchus]

I'm really looking forward to the day that Ringo rips off the mask and reveals that he's been on the wind up all the time.

It's not really a wind up though. Wind ups generally entail some kind of leg pulling. He's just intensely annoying.

[martin_p]

BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT.

NOT BY THE LOSING PARTIES. NOT BY THE LOSING PARTIES.

And there is the whole point!!!!

And with reference to a referendum which Keighley was trying to link. In a binary referendum. The government is mandated to enact the Leave vote. NOT THE LOSING SIDE!

It's not "badging it how I want" you joker. It's the fundamental principle of how British parliamentary democracy works for ***** sake.

The losing parties manifestos are binned. If the government want to make political capital out of Nicking ideas from other ideas thats POLITOCAL OPPORTUNISM.

I know you want to pretend there was "no criteria" as to who actually enacts law. Which I clearly did. But if I didn't point out that out it's absolutely crucial to parliamentary procedure and democracy would be over.
Why do you think I kept linking the parlimetery website that stated the winning parties manifesto is enacted in tolaw and legislation!!!!!!!

So if you agree that parts of the losing parties were enacted by the government then the answer to your original question (and I paraphrase) ‘which part of the losing parties manifesto have been enacted?’ Isn’t ‘none’ then is it?

[aggi]

This is you aggi saying "When presented with examples LibDems manifesto .....enacted into law!

This is you proving that you don't know the difference between political opportunism and parliamentary procedure being breached.

This isn't any better than when you quoted that line a few pages back and I pointed out that I was quoting you. Just doing it again won't change the facts.

So to summarise, you still can't find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting.

[RingoMcCartney]

So if you agree that parts of the losing parties were enacted by the government then the answer to your original question (and I paraphrase) ‘which part of the losing parties manifesto have been enacted?’ Isn’t ‘none’ then is it?

By the government. ( the winning side) As an example of political opportunism. Which is not the same as the losing side be able to enact it's manifesto. If Vince cable was to put white and green papers through (I think that's how it goes) as a losing party leader. It would be breaching hundreds of years of established parliamentary procedure.

Hey Marty. While you're here. That "evidence" you had....Those "facts".......

Any chance? Any chance at all.

[RingoMcCartney]

This isn't any better than when you quoted that line a few pages back and I pointed out that I was quoting you. Just doing it again won't change the facts.

So to summarise, you still can't find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting.

You call it "selective quoting"!!!!!

I call it showing you tying yourself in knots. And me proving you have no idea how democracy works!!!

You go to the trouble of selecting parts of the LibDems manifesto as examples of the losing party enacting their manifesto.

You deny you said it In the first place!

Then you claim you didn't specify who enacted it!!!

Then you try to claim I didn't say only the winning side enact into law their manifesto.

Despite consistently refusing to acknowledge the difference between that and what is political opportunism.

And each and every time I show you examples of you saying what you claim you didn't say. And examples of me saying what I prove I said.

Your only desperate response is "I'm using selective quoting!!"



I think we're edging to a England v Panama half time score here. I really do!!!

And you can "selectively quote" me on that!!!!

[martin_p]

By the government. ( the winning side) As an example of political opportunism. Which is not the same as the losing side be able to enact it's manifesto.

Not a single person has claimed that that's what happened, and it's also not what you originally asked.

[martin_p]

You call it "selective quoting"!!!!!

I call it showing you tying yourself in knots. And me proving you have no idea how democracy works!!!

You go to the trouble of selecting parts of the LibDems manifesto as examples of the losing party enacting their manifesto.

You deny you said it In the first place!

Go on then, show us where he said the Lib Dems enacted their manifesto.

[aggi]

Not a single person has claimed that that's what happened, and it's also not what you originally asked.

That's not true, Ringo's claimed that multiple times ...

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm glad the OP waited until Ringo was back to start this thread, makes it much more entertaining.

On the actual question, point 3 here in the Lib Dem manifesto http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39946809" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; End the 1% public sector pay cap seems to be what the Government announced here http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, it also appears that point 13 Levy up to 200% council tax on second homes is also something that the Government has announced https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consu ... pty-homes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It appears your whole argument was based on a complete lack of research and making stuff up.

These extracts aggi what are they an example of?

Remember I said only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation. By the government.

The losing parties manifestos are binned.

What are the above "points 3 and 13" examples of aggi?

What point were you attempting to prove with your research?

[martin_p]

These extracts aggi what are they an example of?

Remember I said only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation. By the government.

The losing parties manifestos are binned.

What are the above "points 3 and 13" examples of aggi?

What point were you attempting to prove with your research?

Do you not see the word 'government' in both of those sentences? i.e things from the Lib Dem manifesto the government is enacting. that was he was trying to ptove and what he did prove!

[RingoMcCartney]

Even on your new argument The whole point of my analogy was to point out Leave won the referendum. And on a binary in or out decision, the losing sides argument is binned. you're arguing it really badly because your illustration is where ideas clearly weren't binned (public sector pay cap and council tax)..

This is an example of aggi saying manifestos weren't binned.

[Bordeauxclaret]

It's not really a wind up though. Wind ups generally entail some kind of leg pulling. He's just intensely annoying.

He’s a real life Alan Partridge. He should be cherished.

[RingoMcCartney]

I said parts of it had been. Which is very clearly the case because they were in the manifesto and are now law, regardless of who did it.

This is aggi saying parts of it had been!

But bringing in a new idea that it didn't matter who'd did it!

When that was the main point of my argument. It clearly did. The winning side. And with the referendum in mind it was the crucial point. Leave (the winners) should not enact the losing sides remain argument.

[martin_p]

This is an example of aggi saying manifestos weren't binned.

Well the ideas in them clearly aren't or where would the government have got them from?

[UpTheBeehole]

F*ck me, Ringo's thick

[RingoMcCartney]

Well the ideas in them clearly aren't or where would the government have got them from?

2 questions-

1 Is that an ecample of a losing party enacting part of its manifesto into law. Or political opportunism?

2 The Labour Party manifesto pledged to scrap tuition fees. If the Tories do it will that be Labour enacting it's manifesto pledge. Or political opportunism?

[martin_p]

2 questions-

1 Is that an ecample of a losing party enacting part of its manifesto into law. Or political opportunism?

2 The Labour Party manifesto pledged to scrap tuition fees. If the Tories do it will that be Labour enacting it's manifesto pledge. Or political opportunism?

For the fifty millionth time, no one (apart from you, thanks aggi) is claiming the losing party enacts it's manifesto.

It's an example of the government enacting a manifesto pledge from a losing party manifesto. How many times and different ways do you need to hear it before you understand?

[RingoMcCartney]

For the fifty millionth time, no one (apart from you, thanks aggi) is claiming the losing party enacts it's manifesto.

It's an example of the government enacting a manifesto pledge from a losing party manifesto. How many times and different ways do you need to hear it before you understand?

It's political opportunism.

So here's the crux of the point I was making to KeighleyClarets point before aggi jumped in.

The binary referendum result gave a mandate to the government to Leave the European Union. This was the winning sides Leave "manifesto"

How is it possible for the government to, simultaneously, enact the losing sides Remain "manifesto" ?

[martin_p]

It's political opportunism.

So here's the crux of the point I was making to KeighleyClarets point before aggi jumped in.

The binary referendum result gave a mandate to the government to Leave the European Union. This was the winning sides Leave "manifesto"

How is it possible for the government to, simultaneously, enact the losing sides Remain "manifesto" ?

We're staying part of the ECHR and potentially looking at regulatory alignment on goods, i.e things we are REMAINing in, that's how.

[Greenmile]

BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT.

NOT BY THE LOSING PARTIES. NOT BY THE LOSING PARTIES.

And there is the whole point!!!!

And with reference to a referendum which Keighley was trying to link. In a binary referendum. The government is mandated to enact the Leave vote. NOT THE LOSING SIDE!

It's not "badging it how I want" you joker. It's the fundamental principle of how British parliamentary democracy works for ***** sake.

The losing parties manifestos are binned. If the government want to make political capital out of Nicking ideas from other ideas thats POLITOCAL OPPORTUNISM.

I know you want to pretend there was "no criteria" as to who actually enacts law. Which I clearly did. But if I didn't point out that out it's absolutely crucial to parliamentary procedure and democracy would be over.
Why do you think I kept linking the parlimetery website that stated the winning parties manifesto is enacted in tolaw and legislation!!!!!!!

So if the (leave) government enacted the policies of the remain side (ie remaining in the eu), that would just be political (or “politocal”) opportunism and therefore ok in your mind, as long as that policy wasn’t enacted by the losing (remain) side?

I’m just trying to clarify your argument, as you seem to be incapable of doing so.

Edit - 1-0 etc

[RingoMcCartney]

So if the (leave) government enacted the policies of the remain side (ie remaining in the eu), that would just be political (or “politocal”) opportunism and therefore ok in your mind, as long as that policy wasn’t enacted by the losing (remain) side?

I’m just trying to clarify your argument, as you seem to be incapable of doing so.

Edit - 1-0 etc

Oh dear !

If the Goverenmemt decided to Remain in the European Union and go against the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed. That wouldn't be political opportunism my friend. Itd probably see a break down in law and order! Certainly the end of the conservative and probably Labour party!

But I'm sorry to have to break it to you. But it's British law that as of March 2019 the UK will Leave the EU and it's associated bodies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44615245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your 1.0 premature victory lap was ruled out by VAR!

[RingoMcCartney]

We're staying part of the ECHR and potentially looking at regulatory alignment on goods, i.e things we are REMAINing in, that's how.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/the-ass ... s-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Kaboom!!!!!

"We are REMAINing In, that's how"



I ask you how the government can follow it's mandate from the referendum result to Leave and you come out with this absolute screaming piece of utter desperate garbage!!!!!



You step in fighting aggis battle and you snatch a 6.0 annihilation from the jaws of a respectable 3 or 4 for aggi on his own!!!!!



I've got to hand it to you Martin "we're REMAINING In, that's how" p. After yesterday's "facts" free embaressmmt I gave you. You've gone beyond your idiocy remit, and really pulled an all time stupid out of the bag! And from some body else's argument to boot!!!


"We are REMAINing In, that's how"

Absolute and utter comedy dynamite!



http://www.cityam.com/288222/david-davi ... ll-becomes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/the-ass ... s-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"We are REMAINing In, that's how"

Tell that to her majesty the queen who signed off the bill that says your utterly, totally and inarguably wrong!!



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44615245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was only 3 nowt with aggi, and in steps Martin "evidence and facts" p, then it's a easy 6 niller.

3 nil and you ******** it up!
3 nil and you ******** it up!

[Greenmile]

Oh dear !

If the Goverenmemt decided to Remain in the European Union and go against the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed. That wouldn't be political opportunism my friend. Itd probably see a break down in law and order! Certainly the end of the conservative and probably Labour party!

But I'm sorry to have to break it to you. But it's British law that as of March 2019 the UK will Leave the EU and it's associated bodies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44615245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your 1.0 premature victory lap was ruled out by VAR!

I’m not interested in your threats of civil disobedience (which seem to be becoming worryingly common amongst brexiteers).

What would be the difference between an elected government implementing the policies of a losing party (which you have been provided numerous examples of, and written off as “polotical opportunism”), and the leave party (ie the government) implementing the proposals of the losing remain campaign, and ignoring the results of the close, lie-based, advisory, referendum?

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m not interested in your threats of civil disobedience (which seem to be becoming worryingly common amongst brexiteers).

What would be the difference between an elected government implementing the policies of a losing party (which you have been provided numerous examples of, and written off as “polotical opportunism”), and the leave party (ie the government) implementing the proposals of the losing remain campaign, and ignoring the results of the close, lie-based, advisory, referendum?

Please see my above post.

And catch up on the latest, well 2 days ago, political news.

It's coming home. It's coming home.

SOVEREIGNTYS COMING HOME.

It's coming home .....

Come on misery guts. You know the words!

[Greenmile]

Please see my above post.

And catch up on the latest, well 2 days ago, political news.

It's coming home. It's coming home.

SOVEREIGNTYS COMING HOME.

It's coming home .....

Come on misery guts. You know the words!

You’re not going to answer my question then? Can’t say I’m surprised.

[RingoMcCartney]

You’re not going to answer my question then? Can’t say I’m surprised.

It's now hypothetical!!

The Bill has been passed that will see the UK leave the European Union.

What part of that do you not understand?

It's coming home. It's coming home. It's coming.

SOVEREIGNTYS COMING HOME!

Come on grandma!

Heard on Russia -

"The Queen voted out, the Queen voted out!
**** off Europe , the Queen voted out!

[martin_p]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/the-ass ... s-law.html



Kaboom!!!!!

"We are REMAINing In, that's how"



I ask you how the government can follow it's mandate from the referendum result to Leave and you come out with this absolute screaming piece of utter desperate garbage!!!!!



You step in fighting aggis battle and you snatch a 6.0 annihilation from the jaws of a respectable 3 or 4 for aggi on his own!!!!!



I've got to hand it to you Martin "we're REMAINING In, that's how" p. After yesterday's "facts" free embaressmmt I gave you. You've gone beyond your idiocy remit, and really pulled an all time stupid out of the bag! And from some body else's argument to boot!!!


"We are REMAINing In, that's how"

Absolute and utter comedy dynamite!



http://www.cityam.com/288222/david-davi ... ll-becomes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/the-ass ... s-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"We are REMAINing In, that's how"

Tell that to her majesty the queen who signed off the bill that says your utterly, totally and inarguably wrong!!



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44615245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was only 3 nowt with aggi, and in steps Martin "evidence and facts" p, then it's a easy 6 niller.

3 nil and you ******** it up!
3 nil and you ******** it up!

Learn to read dumbo! I said ‘things we are remaining in’, it’s even in your quote. The ECHR is one example, they’ll be plenty more if we’re even going to get close to a decent deal. Where in the ‘Leave manifesto’ did it say we’d still be in the ECHR?

[Spijed]

Learn to read dumbo! I said ‘things we are remaining in’, it’s even in your quote. The ECHR is one example, they’ll be plenty more if we’re even going to get close to a decent deal. Where in the ‘Leave manifesto’ did it say we’d still be in the ECHR?

People as thick as Ringo don't realise that we have no intention of leaving the ECHR.

[evensteadiereddie]

Ringo's cock must be red raw with this latest Brexjizz ******** meltdown.

[RingoMcCartney]

Learn to read dumbo! I said ‘things we are remaining in’, it’s even in your quote. The ECHR is one example, they’ll be plenty more if we’re even going to get close to a decent deal. Where in the ‘Leave manifesto’ did it say we’d still be in the ECHR?

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

You never produced it! Despite numerous opportunities to.

You claimed that you had "facts" that disproved my claim that the EU referendum result was the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed.

None so far...

And when asked how the government could incorporate the losing sides "manifesto" while enacting the mandate it recieved from the referendum result to Leave the European Union. You claim it can do it by "Remaining in it!"

Despite me providing numerous links that show we're leaving!!!

The EHCR as you well know, is not part of the European Union. So by claiming we're REMAINing in something we were never leaving in the first place makes you look even less informed than you thought you were. And more of a "evidence and facts" lacking clown than I knew you we're!



"The ECHR and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR and ECtHR are both part of the Council of Europe which has 47 member states including Russia and the UK."

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats ... f-justice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

". Where in the ‘Leave manifesto’ did it say we’d still be in the ECHR?"

It didn't! Why would it!? It's not part of the European Union!

Facts and evidence Marty. I provide them, you only fantasize about them.



You Marty, are my new favourite idiot!

Did you have Germany in the sweep Marty! Cos like the UK in the European Union.

THEY'RE OUT!!!!

[Greenmile]

It's now hypothetical!!

The Bill has been passed that will see the UK leave the European Union.

What part of that do you not understand?

It's coming home. It's coming home. It's coming.

SOVEREIGNTYS COMING HOME!

Come on grandma!

Heard on Russia -

"The Queen voted out, the Queen voted out!
**** off Europe , the Queen voted out!

So what if it’s hypothetical? Why are you so scared of answering?

[RingoMcCartney]

People as thick as Ringo don't realise that we have no intention of leaving the ECHR.

Neither did Marty!!!!!!!!!!



At least I knew it wasn't part of the European Union.

"The ECHR and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR and ECtHR are both part of the Council of Europe which has 47 member states including Russia and the UK. The European Union (EU) consists of 28 Member States, including the UK."

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats ... f-justice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

So what if it’s hypothetical? Why are you so scared of answering?

Boring troll alert!!! ..... boring troll alert........ boring troll alert........

[Vino blanco]

Keep going RingoM, because you seem to me to be the only one on here, who has grasped what Brexit means and what will happen.

[evensteadiereddie]