Remind us all again how delaying brexit to call a Gen Election is likely to move things on.AndyClaret wrote:It won't if there's no majority for it, a general election is more likely if the ERG decide to pull the plug on May.
If Turkey can be in the customs union and be independent in every other way then there is no reason why we can't do the same.Lowbankclaret wrote:You cannot be in the customs union and have the rest of what you want.
That’s cherry picking the EU said we cannot have.
RoughlyCryssys wrote:Parliament is sovereign. I thought you were in favour of British sovereignty?
They aren't in the Customs Union, they are in an agreement. They are also not in the single market.Mala591 wrote:If Turkey can be in the customs union and be independent in every other way then there is no reason why we can't do the same.
I'm not saying it would, but 1 ERG'er has already called for a general election and if May goes soft so will others.nil_desperandum wrote:Remind us all again how delaying brexit to call a Gen Election is likely to move things on.
There might possibly be a landslide for one party or another, in which case it might point us in a certain direction, but the chances are that the mathematics in Parliament wouldn't change very much.
Sorry Ringo, you've got the wrong man. I have never said anything in support of, or opposition to, a second referendum.RingoMcCartney wrote:
which party has a democratically achieved mandate from a manifesto that pledged to have a 2nd referendum ?
Tha Parliament of which you speak, appears to think it can take it upon itself to bring about a 2nd referendum.Cryssys wrote:Sorry Ringo, you've got the wrong man. I have never said anything in support of, or opposition to, a second referendum.
All I said is that as a sovereign entity Parliament is at liberty to do whatever it sees fit.
Hold on, it's usually Labour supporters creaming themselves at the thought of Tories trying to reduce workers rights and now you're telling me it's Brexiteers who want to do it??Billy Balfour wrote:She could win over enough Labour MPs by guaranteeing that employment rights keep parity with those in the EU.
I mentioned this the other day and someone started banging on how this would be a betrayal of the 2016 vote because it would mean we were in a quasi customs union - that's utter rubbished and stretching it somewhat. What it would do is finally kill off the workers rights bonfire that many Brexit hardliners have been dreaming about.
Like I said, she could get her deal through, or at least have a better chance of it going through, but she won't move an inch. She's not willing to reach out.
There's certainly plenty that are hardline Brexiteers and Tories that would be keen on getting rid of workers rights.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Hold on, it's usually Labour supporters creaming themselves at the thought of Tories trying to reduce workers rights and now you're telling me it's Brexiteers who want to do it??
Not having that one.
what on gods earth are you banging on about commie? work it out we form a new party and take back control Italy did it Hungary did it we will do it and what's even better is we haven't had our Trump moment yet ! now that will get you running to your safe spaceImploding Turtle wrote:lol. I'm a communist, am I? News to me. I bet you can't explain why you think i'm a communist, can you? But you've still not answered my question. Stop being a coward and answer it.
Ironically this whole thread was started with Rowls' premise that you can judge how strong the case for Brexit was by what individual remainers were doing and how bad it made them look ...Lancasterclaret wrote:Live coverage of Ringo at Parliament
https://twitter.com/TashaCaitlinn/statu ... 8541819907" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sadly for you, Ringo, because as people have been telling you all along Parliament is Sovereign. That's the mandate.RingoMcCartney wrote:Tha Parliament of which you speak, appears to think it can take it upon itself to bring about a 2nd referendum.
Where would that parliament get its mandate to do such a thing?
That's a fair summary as I remember it (although my memory isn't always great).RingoMcCartney wrote:
Aggi you and I both know you spent days arguing the toss when Keighley claret attempted to link what happens after a general election to the referendum.
He said the opposition don't just pack up and sit in silence.
I said with a binary in/out referendum only the winning sides manifesto can ever be enacted. To try and accommodate remain would like trying to be half pregnant.
I then said in a general election only the winning party is allowed to enact it's manifesto into legislation and law.
You then stepped in and argued for days on end claiming it was. Attempting to say that when the Tories had stolen a libdems idea it was evidence of a losing party having its manifesto pledge enacted.
I pointed out it was nothing of the sort. It was in fact just political opportunistism to gain popularity.
So my memory is clearly better at recalling what was said and by whom.
You're just as wrong then as you are now!
Anyway you carry on arguing with Turtles head. See if you can lose the argument with him. You lost it with me a long time ago. Despite what your dodgy memory tells you!
Lolz.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Hold on, it's usually Labour supporters creaming themselves at the thought of Tories trying to reduce workers rights and now you're telling me it's Brexiteers who want to do it??
Not having that one.
You'd need to persuade a hell of a lot of voters to embrace your vision to make much impact in Parliament with our FPTP voting system.SmudgetheClaret wrote:what on gods earth are you banging on about commie? work it out we form a new party and take back control Italy did it Hungary did it we will do it and what's even better is we haven't had our Trump moment yet ! now that will get you running to your safe space
So hard-line remaining Tories won't want to do it?aggi wrote:There's certainly plenty that are hardline Brexiteers and Tories that would be keen on getting rid of workers rights.
Except the series of votes proposed in the Benn amendment had already been agreed in principle by Liddington earlier in the day, and now MPs have voted to extend beyond Marh 29th, so both elements of Benn's amendment are likely to come to pass, but in fairness, I have to admit I wouldn't be surprised if there were to be more twists and turns.CrosspoolClarets wrote:6 heroic Labour MPs (and Frank Field, who is more Labour in his heart than most of them) voting against the Benn amendment. If two hadn’t, it would have passed.
Made me wonder if those seven were in charge of the country, what kind of a country would it be? In many ways, a better one.
You’be got very high expectations of a bloke who’s never even been a member of parliamentSmudgetheClaret wrote:what on gods earth are you banging on about commie? work it out we form a new party and take back control Italy did it Hungary did it we will do it and what's even better is we haven't had our Trump moment yet ! now that will get you running to your safe space
Spouting yet another Remoaner rewriting of history.nil_desperandum wrote:Sadly for you, Ringo, because as people have been telling you all along Parliament is Sovereign. That's the mandate.
I don't particularly like this aspect of it myself, but you and millions of others keep telling us that that very thing -(sovereignty) - is what you voted for.
Lancasterclaret wrote:So as we stand, Parliament doesn't want to do anything.
Ace. Thats really helpful.
HANG ON A MINUTE. I REPLIED AND QUOTED A POSTER CALLED "AGGI"Greenmile wrote:That's a fair summary as I remember it (although my memory isn't always great).
The bit in bold is where you lost the argument, because it's incontrovertably and pretty much self-evidently true, irrespective of any political opportunism or anything else you may try to use to argue it away.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Ample rhetoric cloaked in a shroud of vagueness, but no substance. Who is the ultimate sovereign authority in the UK? It's a simple question.RingoMcCartney wrote:Spouting yet another Remoaner rewriting of history.
I and millions of voters were not voting for parliamentary sovereignty.
When we voted Leave we were voting for national sovereignty
But don't let your Remoaner gaslighting stop you from convincing you what I voted for!
This is what I said to you in post 3700!!RingoMcCartney wrote:
Aggi you and I both know you spent days arguing the toss when Keighley claret attempted to link what happens after a general election to the referendum.
He said the opposition don't just pack up and sit in silence.
I said with a binary in/out referendum only the winning sides manifesto can ever be enacted. To try and accommodate remain would like trying to be half pregnant.
I then said in a general election only the winning party is allowed to enact it's manifesto into legislation and law.
You then stepped in and argued for days on end claiming it was. Attempting to say that when the Tories had stolen a libdems idea it was evidence of a losing party having its manifesto pledge enacted.
I pointed out it was nothing of the sort. It was in fact just political opportunistism to gain popularity.
So my memory is clearly better at recalling what was said and by whom.
You're just as wrong then as you are now!
Anyway you carry on arguing with Turtles head. See if you can lose the argument with him. You lost it with me a long time ago. Despite what your dodgy memory tells you!
Aggi you and I both know you spent days arguing the toss when Keighley claret attempted to link what happens after a general election to the referendum.aggi wrote:Well I didn't say that but I know that when you don't understand something you just reinterpret it to fit your narrative and spout out something unrelated to what was originally said (and then complain that people are being pedantic as you don't understand the difference) so there isn't much point in debating it other than to point out you're making stuff up again.
You said it to aggi, and I answered. I didn't know I needed permission to join your and aggi's discussion. My post on this was right though, wasn't it? Try playing the ball and not the man.RingoMcCartney wrote:This is what I said to you in post 3700!!
You "aggi" / "greemile"
RingoMcCartney wrote:Aggi you and I both know you spent days arguing the toss when Keighley claret attempted to link what happens after a general election to the referendum.
He said the opposition don't just pack up and sit in silence.
I said with a binary in/out referendum only the winning sides manifesto can ever be enacted. To try and accommodate remain would like trying to be half pregnant.
I then said in a general election only the winning party is allowed to enact it's manifesto into legislation and law.
You then stepped in and argued for days on end claiming it was. Attempting to say that when the Tories had stolen a libdems idea it was evidence of a losing party having its manifesto pledge enacted.
I pointed out it was nothing of the sort. It was in fact just political opportunistism to gain popularity.
So my memory is clearly better at recalling what was said and by whom.
You're just as wrong then as you are now!
Anyway you carry on arguing with Turtles head. See if you can lose the argument with him. You lost it with me a long time ago. Despite what your dodgy memory tells you!
THIS IS "AGGI" FORGETTING TO LOG OUT AND REPLYING BACK TO ME AS "GREENMILE"Greenmile wrote:That's a fair summary as I remember it (although my memory isn't always great).
The bit in bold is where you lost the argument, because it's incontrovertably and pretty much self-evidently true, irrespective of any political opportunism or anything else you may try to use to argue it away.