Project fear aka pure political fantasy..

[martin_p]

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!!!!

Ok, fair point. I’m prepared to admit I made a mistake on the ECHR (I could spend pages claiming that’s not what I meant and you’re being pedantic to avoid admitting it like you do, but I’m always happy to admit making a mistake). However, as mentioned in this thread (or another Brexit thread) recently, we are part of hundreds of EU treaties that are nothing to do with economic union and it would be disasterous to leave them all. In addition it seems the government are trying to negotiate being part of the customs union for goods. There’s a number of things we inevitably remain a part of, unless government incompetence leads us to ‘no deal’.

By the way, that bill that passed into law you keep trumpeting. It’s just the legislation we need to transfer EU laws into British law, it doesn’t mean that Brexit, by law, has to happen as you seem to think.

[Greenmile]

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

The only troll I see is tying himself in knots to avoid answering a simple question.

(“Boring” I may have to concede, though)

[martin_p]

The only troll I see is tying himself in knots to avoid answering a simple question.

(“Boring” I may have to concede, though)

It’s one of his go to deflection techniques when he can’t answer a question.

[Imploding Turtle]

It’s one of his go to deflection techniques when he can’t answer a question.

There's a fwe on here who does it. There are a lot of people, mostly on Ringo's wing but one or two on ours too, who like to ad hominem themselves through entire threads.

[Greenmile]

There's a fwe on here who does it. There are a lot of people, mostly on Ringo's wing but one or two on ours too, who like to ad hominem themselves through entire threads.

Like when Damo angrily tells people how angry they’re getting? That’s one of my favourites.

[Imploding Turtle]

Like when Damo angrily tells people how angry they’re getting? That’s one of my favourites.

lol. Or how we're virtue-signalling and therefore only pretending to care about children suffering child abuse.

[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?

Point 1 - I haven't "been provided numerous examples of an elected government implementing the policies of a losing party"

Aggi attempted to convince me (failed) ,himself and others (succeeded) that a losing party's manifesto can be enacted into law and legislation. Constitutionally that cannot and does not happen. The idea that civil servants in Whitehall would do so is, in my opinion, inconceivable

A Government seeking to gain popularity by adopting what it sees as a "vote winner" , which does happen. Is an entirely different things. Legally and constitutionally.

"Initially, a government's agenda is informed by the general election. Political parties compete for support from British voters by campaigning on their vision for the country and how they would change things. The political party that wins then forms the government, and bases its legislative agenda on its election manifesto"

Taken from the official parliamentary website.-

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

Point 2 - Following a General election, a government has a whole plethora issues to address. Health , defence, education, transport, etc etc. Consequently, there is ample opportunity to seize upon the chance to make political capital by copying what were other parties popular policies. And, like the Tories now considering scrapping tuition fees ( which is not the government enacting the losing labour party's 2017 manifesto) it will do it to increase its popularity amongst voters.

Political opportunism is in simple terms a government adopting other parties policies to increase its popularity.

Point 3 - a binary referendum on a simple Leave or Remain is very different. It's , unlike a general election which is fought on a multitude of issues, fought on a SINGLE issue.

Consequently, there is no scope for the government to adopt the losing sides proposition, to gain popularity. For instance, the Scottish government could not try be partly independent from the UK, in an attempt to be popular with nationalists in Scotland. Following their independence referendum , they had to Remain part of the UK. Ditto the UK government following the mandate it recieved from the referendum result. You cannot leave the EU while trying to Remain.

However. For the purposes of answering your, clearly hyperthetical question.

You ask what would be the difference between a government being politically opportunist. And a government ignoring the result of the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed, and choosing to "implement the proposals of the losing Remain campaign?"

It's a very straight forward answer. And without realising it you've answered it yourself.

The former would be proactively adopting a policy, that majority the electorate have shown they would approve. In order , one would assume, to increase its popularity.

The latter would be choosing to ignore the majority of the electorate by adopting what they have shown they would not approve. In order, inexplicably, to become less popular.

That would be the clear, unambiguous difference.

[RingoMcCartney]

Greenmile! You popped in. Then disappeared without as so much as a word!

Not like you! Cat got ya tongue?

[martin_p]

For instance, the Scottish government could not try be partly independent from the UK, in an attempt to be popular with nationalists in Scotland.

Not for the reasons you state, but partial independence is exactly what did happen. A whole raft of new powers were promised to the Scottish government by Cameron and co in a desperate attempt to stave off what looked like might be a vote for independence.

[Imploding Turtle]

Not for the reasons you state, but partial independence is exactly what did happen. A whole raft of new powers were promised to the Scottish government by Cameron and co in a desperate attempt to stave off what looked like might be a vote for independence.

And now that they've been taken back, the Scottish will have another referendum. But watch as the Ringos of the country cry about how that would be undemocrattic and "not accepting the result". It's almost as if to them it's ok to lie to win a referendum. Oh wait, it is.

[RingoMcCartney]

Not for the reasons you state, but partial independence is exactly what did happen. A whole raft of new powers were promised to the Scottish government by Cameron and co in a desperate attempt to stave off what looked like might be a vote for independence.

The "No" side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour.

Fact - Scotland remains part the UK.

Sorry Marty, it's now day four of Ringo providing the facts that don't you any favours.

[RingoMcCartney]

And now that they've been taken back, the Scottish will have another referendum. But watch as the Ringos of the country cry about how that would be undemocrattic and "not accepting the result". It's almost as if to them it's ok to lie to win a referendum. Oh wait, it is.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 85795.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Voters in Scotland would oppose independence in a second referendum by 57% to 43%, according to a poll.

Looks like the "once in a generation" claim is looking solid.

[RingoMcCartney]

You losers seen anything of the green pimpernel?

Looks like he's miles away from here.

[Imploding Turtle]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 85795.html

Voters in Scotland would oppose independence in a second referendum by 57% to 43%, according to a poll.

Looks like the "once in a generation" claim is looking solid.

So you trust polls now? Good.

And FYI that poll is months before the English power-grab earlier this month.

[martin_p]

The "No" side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour.

Fact - Scotland remains part the UK.

Sorry Marty, it's now day four of Ringo providing the facts that don't you any favours.

And another fact is that it has a lot more independence since the referendum (devo max).

[Imploding Turtle]

And another fact is that it has a lot more independence since the referendum (devo max).

In order to secure that 55% result the English made two key promises.

1) That Scotland will have a bunch of new powers
2) EU membership can only be guarenteed inside the UK.

Since then England has decided to drag Scotland out of the EU, and then clawed back those new powers.

The SNP were elected on a manifesto that promised there would only be a second indyref if there was "material change" in the circumstances that led to the referendum result. The manifesto even cited scotland being taken out of the EU against its will as just one example of "material change".

There is clearly a mandate for a second independence referendum but you can bet that Ringo and his extremist friends, and perhaps some non-extremists too, will peddle bullshit about how anti-democratic it all is.

This is what happens when you win a referendum based on lies and broken promises. The Leave campaign are learning that lesson too.

[RingoMcCartney]

Scotland remains part of the United kingdom.

Fact.

[Imploding Turtle]

United Kingdom remains part of the EU.

Fact.

[RingoMcCartney]

[quote="Imploding Turtle"][/quote]

The majority of eligible voters in the uk chose to Leave the European Union. We're leaving in March 2019

The majority of scottish voters voted to Remain part of The UK. It remains do today.

2 facts.

[Imploding Turtle]

The majority of eligible voters in the uk chose to Leave the European Union. We're leaving in March 2019

The majority of scottish voters voted to Remain part of The UK. It remains do today.

2 facts.

1 fact. barely.

Facts and counting seems to trouble you. And bbcode.

[martin_p]

Scotland remains part of the United kingdom.

Fact.

What I’m trying to demonstrate to you (and as ever it looks like I’ll have to do it in very basic terms) is that it’s not as black and white as you make out. Yes, Scotland is still in the U.K., but those promoting independence still managed to get some of the things that wanted.

[UpTheBeehole]

The majority of eligible voters in the uk chose to Leave the European Union. We're leaving in March 2019

WRONG!!!!!!!

The 'eligible voters', AKA the electorate, numbered 46,500,001.

The number of people who voted to leave the EU was 17,410,742.

17,410,742 is 37.44% of 46,500,001, therefore the majority of eligible voters in the United Kingdom DID NOT choose to leave the European Union.

[UpTheBeehole]

Oh dear Ringo

[UpTheBeehole]

[RingoMcCartney]

WRONG!!!!!!!

The 'eligible voters', AKA the electorate, numbered 46,500,001.

The number of people who voted to leave the EU was 17,410,742.

17,410,742 is 37.44% of 46,500,001, therefore the majority of eligible voters in the United Kingdom DID NOT choose to leave the European Union.

Not that desperate desperate old chestnut uphisownhole!!!

Really!!!!!!!?



Not the counting those eligible but didn't vote and adding them to those that voted to Remain!!!!



Let's try it this way - 52 is a bigger number than 48.

That means, despite your desperate maths, the majority didn't vote to Remain!



There, even an intellectual pygmy, like yourself can get his ickle brain round that.

Which means LEAVE won.

[UpTheBeehole]

You don't even know what you're typing half the time do you?

I even quoted your own words back to you as well!

What a clown

[RingoMcCartney]

Yes, Scotland is still in the U.K..

You can leave it right there Marty. Otherwise I'm afraid on top of your claim that you "had evidence" that ending free movement of peoplewould not help to stop exploitation and people trafficking and end modern day slavery.

But provided non. 1.0

Said you had "facts" that showed the referendum result was not the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed.

But provided non. 2.0

Then yesterday tried to say the remaining in the ECHR was evidence of a government REMAINing in the EU. When it was never leaving it as the ECHR is not part of the European Union!!!

A clear own goal why arguing on behalf of aggi!

3.0

You're edging to me notching up yet another goal

[RingoMcCartney]

You don't even know what you're typing half the time do you?

I even quoted your own words back to you as well!

What a clown

Leave won. Even a clown would realise that!

Somebody yell this joker the referendum was on 23rd June 2016 and the final votes have been in for a while. According to Mr Dimblebey.

Reality 1. Up his own hole 0

[martin_p]

You can leave it right there Marty. Otherwise I'm afraid on top of your claim that you "had evidence" that ending free movement of peoplewould not help to stop exploitation and people trafficking and end modern day slavery.

But provided non. 1.0

Said you had "facts" that showed the referendum result was not the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed.

But provided non. 2.0

Then yesterday tried to say the remaining in the ECHR was evidence of a government REMAINing in the EU. When it was never leaving it as the ECHR is not part of the European Union!!!

A clear own goal why arguing on behalf of aggi!

3.0

You're edging to me notching up yet another goal

My three year old son is genuinely able to hold a more grown up conversation than Ringo (and I’m not even joking).

[Imploding Turtle]

UK is still in the EU. So i guess we can all just leave that right there too, eh?

[Greenmile]

Point 1 - I haven't "been provided numerous examples of an elected government implementing the policies of a losing party"

Aggi attempted to convince me (failed) ,himself and others (succeeded) that a losing party's manifesto can be enacted into law and legislation. Constitutionally that cannot and does not happen. The idea that civil servants in Whitehall would do so is, in my opinion, inconceivable

A Government seeking to gain popularity by adopting what it sees as a "vote winner" , which does happen. Is an entirely different things. Legally and constitutionally.

"Initially, a government's agenda is informed by the general election. Political parties compete for support from British voters by campaigning on their vision for the country and how they would change things. The political party that wins then forms the government, and bases its legislative agenda on its election manifesto"

Taken from the official parliamentary website.-

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

Point 2 - Following a General election, a government has a whole plethora issues to address. Health , defence, education, transport, etc etc. Consequently, there is ample opportunity to seize upon the chance to make political capital by copying what were other parties popular policies. And, like the Tories now considering scrapping tuition fees ( which is not the government enacting the losing labour party's 2017 manifesto) it will do it to increase its popularity amongst voters.

Political opportunism is in simple terms a government adopting other parties policies to increase its popularity.

Point 3 - a binary referendum on a simple Leave or Remain is very different. It's , unlike a general election which is fought on a multitude of issues, fought on a SINGLE issue.

Consequently, there is no scope for the government to adopt the losing sides proposition, to gain popularity. For instance, the Scottish government could not try be partly independent from the UK, in an attempt to be popular with nationalists in Scotland. Following their independence referendum , they had to Remain part of the UK. Ditto the UK government following the mandate it recieved from the referendum result. You cannot leave the EU while trying to Remain.

However. For the purposes of answering your, clearly hyperthetical question.

You ask what would be the difference between a government being politically opportunist. And a government ignoring the result of the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed, and choosing to "implement the proposals of the losing Remain campaign?"

It's a very straight forward answer. And without realising it you've answered it yourself.

The former would be proactively adopting a policy, that majority the electorate have shown they would approve. In order , one would assume, to increase its popularity.

The latter would be choosing to ignore the majority of the electorate by adopting what they have shown they would not approve. In order, inexplicably, to become less popular.

That would be the clear, unambiguous difference.

So, to be clear, if it became clear that the majority of the electorate no longer want to leave the EU, you’d be happy for the government to ignore the result of the advisory referendum?

I’ve been out enjoying the sun, hence the late reply. Sorry.

[aggi]

Do you think Ringo really appreciates that what he's typed is wrong when it gets pointed out to him and decides to brazen it out or does he really believe he's right?

It must be the former, I mean, surely there's no way you can believe this The majority of eligible voters in the uk chose to Leave the European Union. is true however you try and bend your mind around it.

[RingoMcCartney]

So, to be clear, if it became clear that the majority of the electorate no longer want to leave the EU, you’d be happy for the government to ignore the result of the advisory referendum?

I’ve been out enjoying the sun, hence the late reply. Sorry.

You asked me what the difference would be. I explained.

[Imploding Turtle]

Do you think Ringo really appreciates that what he's typed is wrong when it gets pointed out to him and decides to brazen it out or does he really believe he's right?

It must be the former, I mean, surely there's no way you can believe this The majority of eligible voters in the uk chose to Leave the European Union. is true however you try and bend your mind around it.

No. I think he's not quite all there. It's one of the reasons i've stopped laying into him so much.

[RingoMcCartney]

My three year old son is genuinely able to hold a more grown up conversation than Ringo (and I’m not even joking).

Does he make you look silly as well!

What's he on?

Son 4 . Daddy 0!?

[martin_p]

You asked me what the difference would be. I explained.

And then he asked you another question, it’s how conversation and debate work.

[RingoMcCartney]

No. I think he's not quite all there. It's one of the reasons i've stopped laying into him so much.

Aah aggis here. the king of saying something he meant else. Then saying he didn't. Then saying certain criteria wasn't previously there! Then when it's pointed out it clearly was. He claims some load of ******** about "selective quoting"!!!!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

And then he asked you another question, it’s how conversation and debate work.

Let people fight their own battles.

You don't come out of it looking good!

Ask aggi!!!!!!

And in your world conversation and debate seems to you claim to have " evidence and facts " then don't deliver!

[Greenmile]

You asked me what the difference would be. I explained.

Your explanation implied you’d be happy for the government to ignore the (advisory) referendum result, if doing so would have popular support. That surprises me, so I’m asking you to confirm this is the case.

[martin_p]

Let people fight their own battles.

You don't come out of it looking good!

Ask aggi!!!!!!

You’re obviously happy in your own little fantasy world mate, so I’ll leave you to it. Catch me a Brexit unicorn while you’re there.

[Greenmile]

Do you think Ringo really appreciates that what he's typed is wrong when it gets pointed out to him and decides to brazen it out or does he really believe he's right?

It must be the former, I mean, surely there's no way you can believe this The majority of eligible voters in the uk chose to Leave the European Union. is true however you try and bend your mind around it.

I sometimes think he’s an ardent remainer, who’s just trying to make brexiteers look (more) stupid. Stranger things have happened.

[RingoMcCartney]

Your explanation implied you’d be happy for the government to ignore the (advisory) referendum result, if doing so would have popular support. That surprises me, so I’m asking you to confirm this is the case.

Advisory -

"Its your decision. The government will enact your decision:"

1 are you aware that the result of a general election is "adisory" until it gets royal consent.

2 does it make the result any less valid?

3 how do imply that id be happy for the government to ignore the referendum result. Can you clarify that?

[Imploding Turtle]

Aah aggis here. the king of saying something he meant else. Then saying he didn't. Then saying certain criteria wasn't previously there! Then when it's pointed out it clearly was. He claims some load of ******** about "selective quoting"!!!!!!

Can someone translate?

[Greenmile]

Advisory -

"Its your decision. The government will enact your decision:"

Are you aware that the result of a general election is "adisory" until it gets royal consent.

Does it make the result any less valid?

I’m happy to edit my post to remove the word “advisory” if you’ll answer my question.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m happy to edit my post to remove the word “advisory” if you’ll answer my question.

how do imply that id be happy for the government to ignore the referendum result. Can you clarify that?

[Bordeauxclaret]

I love drunk Ringo more than normal Ringo.

[Greenmile]

how do imply that id be happy for the government to ignore the referendum result. Can you clarify that?

The bit I put in bold when I quoted your post this afternoon.

Edit - my post 31 on this page.

[RingoMcCartney]

Your explanation implied you’d be happy for the government to ignore the (advisory) referendum result, if doing so would have popular suppor.

Where do I imply I'd be "happy for the government to ignore the (advisory) referendum result, if doing so would have popular suppor."

[Imploding Turtle]

1 are you aware that the result of a general election is "adisory" until it gets royal consent.

Since you brought in the comparison, it's worth reminding you that the public gets to change its mind when it comes to electing a government. So i guess that would mean you're ok with the public changing it's mind with regards to this referendum.

So, do you support a second referendum if there's good reason to believe that the public has changed its mind? Or even simply to affirm the decision it made?

[RingoMcCartney]

The bit I put in bold when I quoted your post this afternoon.

Edit - my post 31 on this page.

"The former would be proactively adopting a policy, that majority the electorate have shown they would approve. In order , one would assume, to increase its popularity.

The latter would be choosing to ignore the majority of the electorate by adopting what they have shown they would not approve. In order, inexplicably, to become less popular."

This is not me implying I'd be happy, or disappointed, for that matter. This is me explaining what difference between the 2 scenarios you set out.

It's the 2 different actions of a government behaving diffently in 2 separate scenarios.

Again where do I imply my approval or disapproval of either course of action of the government?