Post-Brexit Thread

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Not at all, I certainly didn't say that.

In fairness he didn't mention you, he just said "judging by this forum it's the idea of most leavers".

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In fairness he didn't mention you, he just said "judging by this forum it's the idea of most leavers".

In fairness he did by quoting my post just as I'm mentioning you by quoting yours.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

In fairness he did by quoting my post just as I'm mentioning you by quoting yours.

He was just replying to you.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He was just replying to you.

Then I would've preferred he'd actually answered my question. He's not a politician by any chance?

[Gavin78]

Do you think we should still commit to the 50/60 billion we agreed to pay before we leave the EU?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

Do you think we should still commit to the 50/60 billion we agreed to pay before we leave the EU?

I'm tempted to say bill it to those who voted leave who as a windfall tax. I guess it depends on what we legally and morally should pay.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Not at all, I certainly didn't say that.

Yous asked who's idea ?
i answered
"It's the idea of all those who think Parliament should have no say and judging by this forum it's the idea of most leavers"

---------- Post added at 06:35 ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 ----------

[QUOTE=papa smurf;35876693]

Originally Posted by martyh

Are you seriously expecting people to believe you don't share the views of rag you keep posting from .Of course if you don't then now is your chance to set the record straight on your views regarding the various court cases and what you would like to see from the negotiations.[COLOR="Silver"]


you accused me either put up your evidence or shut up

I did ,i quoted the post you used to incorrectly state that the court cases where trying to reverse Brexit ,which is completely wrong ....post 3225 ,you posted it and you believe it and your past posts confirm it .

Once again i will give you the chance to confirm or deny whether you believe the crap you post ,you have the chance here to tell everyone exactly what your thoughts are regarding the various court cases and what you think the government should do .Or you can continue posting inaccurate,alarmist rubbish and confirm what i already suspect

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by martyh

They are busy waiting for us to get our act together enough to give them a clue of what we want .They can't do a damn thing until they know
---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

[/COLOR]

Well that's a bit of a nonsense thing to say .We where voting to either stay in Europe or leave Europe ,there was never an option to change Europe to our way of liking ,the only thing we can change is our membership

Post 1: No, it's chicken and egg. You may hold that view, but you need to realise that the EU will not allow any informal discussions prior to our triggering Article 50. That makes our preparations for the talks proper more difficult and clearly that means it will take more time.

Post 2: How is it nonsense? If we leave, there is a little question of how we can stay within the common market without the free movement of people. Given the EU's intransigence on this point, we are left with little choice other than to go for a hard Brexit if we are to give people what they want.

You know as well as I do that many people don't like the way Europe is run, and that's why David Cameron tried to negotiate something better, but he failed. That is one of the main reasons why he lost the referendum. Had it gone in his favour by 52% to 48%, the issue of the kind of Europe we want would still be there and people would still be pushing for change. However, I can imagine what the attitude of the remainers would have been to that discontent!

---------- Post added at 08:07 ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A bizarre comment. A vote to remain was for the status quo, it wasn't to join the Eurozone or to alter our relationship with Europe in any way.

In which case, as we voted to leave, why are the remainers not accepting that straight forward vote.

There are 'buts' with both options.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

In which case, as we voted to leave, why are the remainers not accepting that straight forward vote.

There are 'buts' with both options.

As Denphone and many others have said, the vote has been accepted. The Prime Minister herself is a "remainer" though that term is now some six months out of date.
Do you seriously believe that the Article 50 challenge is not about due process but some dastardly conspiracy to prevent the UK leaving?

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you seriously believe that the Article 50 challenge is not about due process but some dastardly conspiracy to prevent the UK leaving?

YES! Next stupid question.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

As Denphone and many others have said, the vote has been accepted. The Prime Minister herself is a "remainer" though that term is now some six months out of date.
Do you seriously believe that the Article 50 challenge is not about due process but some dastardly conspiracy to prevent the UK leaving?

Do you seriously believe that city corporations, private citizens and foreign UK residents like Gina Miller who nobody had previously ever heard of, are suddenly such passionate defenders of the Westminster model of democracy that they're prepared to chuck great piles of their own money at "defending" it? Why do you think Miller demanded the government accept the ruling at the high court and not appeal to the Supreme Court? Because the real truth is, she doesn't give two short smegs for our constitutional arrangements and doesn't understand that once the balance of power between Crown and Parliament has been challenged, history itself demands that it be settled at the highest level. Instead, she dim-wittedly suggested that the government should be "honourable" and not pursue an appeal. The base ignorance of it from someone who took it upon herself to challenge the very basis of the British constitution is shocking.

That balance is at the very heart of what Britain is. Families in these islands shed each others' blood over it. That makes this Supreme Court case very necessary and important, without altering the fact that the process was triggered by bad motives the plaintiffs have not had the courage to own up to.

Of course this court case isn't going to prevent the UK leaving; of course that is not its stated aim. The whole point of this action, and others like it (there is a ludicrous attempt in the courts of the Irish Republic at the moment, trying to engineer a way for the ECJ to have its say on the process) is to delay Brexit for as long as possible, in the hope the country will go to hell in a handcart in the meantime. Arch-remainers know they can't openly demand a referendum re-run right now, but if the polls shift dramatically then they will have the pretext they're hoping for.

Delay, delay, delay and hope something turns up. That's what it's all about.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

YES! Next stupid question.

In which case, how come the Article 50 is financed by leavers like Deir Dos Santos then?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you seriously believe that the Article 50 challenge is not about due process but some dastardly conspiracy to prevent the UK leaving?

lol! Are you asking that with a straight face?

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Do you seriously believe that city corporations, private citizens and foreign UK residents like Gina Miller who nobody had previously ever heard of, are suddenly such passionate defenders of the Westminster model of democracy that they're prepared to chuck great piles of their own money at "defending" it? Why do you think Miller demanded the government accept the ruling at the high court and not appeal to the Supreme Court? Because the real truth is, she doesn't give two short smegs for our constitutional arrangements and doesn't understand that once the balance of power between Crown and Parliament has been challenged, history itself demands that it be settled at the highest level. Instead, she dim-wittedly suggested that the government should be "honourable" and not pursue an appeal. The base ignorance of it from someone who took it upon herself to challenge the very basis of the British constitution is shocking.

That balance is at the very heart of what Britain is. Families in these islands shed each others' blood over it. That makes this Supreme Court case very necessary and important, without altering the fact that the process was triggered by bad motives the plaintiffs have not had the courage to own up to.

Of course this court case isn't going to prevent the UK leaving; of course that is not its stated aim. The whole point of this action, and others like it (there is a ludicrous attempt in the courts of the Irish Republic at the moment, trying to engineer a way for the ECJ to have its say on the process) is to delay Brexit for as long as possible, in the hope the country will go to hell in a handcart in the meantime. Arch-remainers know they can't openly demand a referendum re-run right now, but if the polls shift dramatically then they will have the pretext they're hoping for.

Delay, delay, delay and hope something turns up. That's what it's all about.

Excellent post

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Do you seriously believe that city corporations, private citizens and foreign UK residents like Gina Miller who nobody had previously ever heard of, are suddenly such passionate defenders of the Westminster model of democracy that they're prepared to chuck great piles of their own money at "defending" it? Why do you think Miller demanded the government accept the ruling at the high court and not appeal to the Supreme Court? Because the real truth is, she doesn't give two short smegs for our constitutional arrangements and doesn't understand that once the balance of power between Crown and Parliament has been challenged, history itself demands that it be settled at the highest level. Instead, she dim-wittedly suggested that the government should be "honourable" and not pursue an appeal. The base ignorance of it from someone who took it upon herself to challenge the very basis of the British constitution is shocking.

That balance is at the very heart of what Britain is. Families in these islands shed each others' blood over it. That makes this Supreme Court case very necessary and important, without altering the fact that the process was triggered by bad motives the plaintiffs have not had the courage to own up to.

Of course this court case isn't going to prevent the UK leaving; of course that is not its stated aim. The whole point of this action, and others like it (there is a ludicrous attempt in the courts of the Irish Republic at the moment, trying to engineer a way for the ECJ to have its say on the process) is to delay Brexit for as long as possible, in the hope the country will go to hell in a handcart in the meantime. Arch-remainers know they can't openly demand a referendum re-run right now, but if the polls shift dramatically then they will have the pretext they're hoping for.

Delay, delay, delay and hope something turns up. That's what it's all about.

Theresa May has confirmed that the Article 50 challenge hasn't delayed anything so what's the big deal?
Gina Miller is not a "foreign UK resident". Where do you get this idea come from? I fear it has influenced your interpretation of her motives somewhat. She is British and was born in a British Commonwealth country, British Guiana which is now called Guyana and grew up in England. She has battled many issues including fund management charges in the public interest and this is another issue she feels strongly about. She and her husband have been major contributors to the Margaret Thatcher infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. The fact that you have not heard of her before is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

lol! Are you asking that with a straight face?

Yes but not to your good self, to Old Boy.
I fear that your views are as per the quote from Stephen Philips that I posted recently, "The leavers, you might imagine, would be brimming with seasonal good cheer. For some, this is the culmination of a life’s political work. They should be dancing in the streets. Instead, gripped by a fear that verges on paranoia, they see dark plots and dastardly conspiracies in every doorway."

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

they see dark plots and dastardly conspiracies in every doorway."

Maybe because we have such little faith in the liberal, pro-EU elite in actually carrying out the wishes of the electorate?

I voted "leave" in full knowledge (see project fear) that it would mean removing EVERY EU tentacle binding this country. For me there's nothing to negotiate and we stop paying. IF the EU wants to make a trade deal with us, then fine, but we should not be grovelling to the EU as so many times before.