Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile,
in The Lounge

 Share

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      10
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      127
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      13

Recommended Posts

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Well, you're a remoaner, probably like most of them who have no idea at all; you know, the metropolitan establishment elite, those within the M25 bubble whose main concern with Brexit is that they might be deprived of their eastern European barrista or nanny. I'm sure that you won't be bothered and are bored, but you make a grave error of judgement if you believe that the majority of leave voters would just shrug their shoulders at a government betrayal of Brexit.

 

Les -before you go all hard and working class hero on us, remember you're a pampered southern baby boomer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Sorry, mate, I don't know what you're talking about. The referendum was a vote, informing Parliament of the will of the people and is thus advisory, a "motion in neutral terms" is a motion voted on by Parliament and is advisory and an Act of Parliament, as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is the law, which the Government enforces. Any change to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 requires, not surprisingly, an Act of Parliament, after it has passed though both Houses and received Royal Assent.

Personally, I think the Government, whether it is Labour or Conservative, would be more concerned with ignoring the advice of 17.4 million than Dominic f***ing Grieve....

 

As Shurlock has done the dirty work already...

 

The Grieve amendment is not legally binding but it is effectively politically binding and would be virtually impossible to ignore (read up on the UK's unwritten or uncodified constitution if you want understand how many of parliament's conventions and customs are not law but for practical purposes are treated as law because they are politically binding).

 

And the fact remains there is no parliamentary majority for no deal. Just as Santa doesn't exist.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-deal-vote-parliament-conservatives-labour-dup-commons-a8666846.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As Shurlock has done the dirty work already...

 

Oh, look, Herbert's got a hand puppet.

 

Although this was an important amendment to the Bill, whose affect should not be diminished, one should probably not be over-enthusiastic about the prospects of greater parliamentary control over Brexit.

 

First, Dominic Grieve and other so-called “rebel MPs” were at pains to express that (contrary to some reports in the press) amendment seven was not intended to stop Brexit in any way. Instead it is intended to try to make sure that Brexit takes place in an orderly manner. There is weight to this statement because (again contrary to some media reports) amendment seven gives parliament no power to amend any Withdrawal Agreement. This deal is negotiated between the UK government and the EU, and should parliament exercise its power to vote against the deal, there is no guarantee that the EU would be willing to reopen negotiations to make any changes. The UK Parliament cannot force that. Indeed, by the time any Withdrawal Agreement is concluded, there will be very little time for renegotiation, given that Article 50 (which Parliament voted to trigger) dictates that the UK leaves the EU on 29th March, 2019 (unless there is a unanimous agreement to extend the process, or the UK seeks to revoke Article 50, which may not be possible unilaterally).

 

That's the way to do it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Herbert Von W@nkstain having a mare....:lol:

 

 

Nope pal. As I've said before, the one thing that the Brexiters have on their side is time and the clock winding down. But the government will find it difficult to ignore the amendment. Coupled with the fact that there is no parliamentary majority for a no deal, the government will have to get real once it realise May's deal is unlikely to pass. In those circumstances all bets are off, including extensions of Article 50 or even revoking it altogether.

 

Keep feeding me the sterling tips pal - I've made a killing off chumps like you.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
So where is that from, as I'm pretty sure we were told the other day that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50..? Is the article out of date and no longer relevant perchance?

 

Its from a prospect article from last year referring to a different amendment. Beats JJ usual DT garbage. I actually know the author. Surprise, surprise its partly a matter of opinion, especially on matters so uncertain and unchartered.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
So where is that from, as I'm pretty sure we were told the other day that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50..? Is the article out of date and no longer relevant perchance?

 

I think that you are getting confused between the EU telling us that we can unilaterally revoke article 50 (as far as they are concerned) and what our Parliament is able to do to revoke it (as far as we are concerned)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So where is that from, as I'm pretty sure we were told the other day that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50..? Is the article out of date and no longer relevant perchance?

Obviously the ECJ has ruled, very coincidentally and the day before the meaningful vote, that the UK can revoke Article 50, but not to extend the process. These postdated the article I quoted, but I'm not sure how this supports your argument as Dominic Grieve's amendment to the Withdrawal Act wasn't mentioned in the ECJ judgement....

 

Best get Herbert to draft a response for you, although he's probably tired from reading up about Parliamentary Democracy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Obviously the ECJ has ruled, very coincidentally and the day before the meaningful vote, that the UK can revoke Article 50, but not to extend the process. These postdated the article I quoted, but I'm not sure how this supports your argument as Dominic Grieve's amendment to the Withdrawal Act wasn't mentioned in the ECJ judgement....

 

Best get Herbert to draft a response for you, although he's probably tired from reading up about Parliamentary Democracy....

 

JJ you do realise your Prospect article is discussing a completely different amendment from the one passed last week? Only a year out mind :lol:

 

Best ask Santa for some reading lessons too pal.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Obviously the ECJ has ruled, very coincidentally and the day before the meaningful vote, that the UK can revoke Article 50, but not to extend the process. These postdated the article I quoted, but I'm not sure how this supports your argument as Dominic Grieve's amendment to the Withdrawal Act wasn't mentioned in the ECJ judgement....

 

Best get Herbert to draft a response for you, although he's probably tired from reading up about Parliamentary Democracy....

 

I think it's best to just see what happens - none of us can predict the future - we can all speculate on what will and will not happen in relation to a ****ed up Government, trying to convince a ****ed up parliament to administer a ****ed up Brexit, due to a ****ed up vote in a ****ed up country.

 

Frankly people can talk about the way the rules are formed, whether they are binding, advisory or not applicable, but we are in uncharted waters where political rules and will are not being followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted (edited)
JJ you do realise your Prospect article is discussing a completely different amendment from the one passed last week?

 

Best ask Santa for some reading lessons too pal :lol:

 

As I am Shurlock's lap dog apparently, I think I will continue to quote him for your pleasure GM.

 

As an aside GM, you may want to look back through the history of me and Shurlock - we have spent far more time disagreeing and trading insults over the years than we have agreeing on things. It just so happens that this is one of the things we do agree on.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted (edited)
I have children and grandchildren. I realise that you might have an "I'm alright Jack, blow you" attitude, but I don't.

 

Then why did you vote to make them poorer and give them worse prospects? Why would you do that to your own family members? Do you really hate them that much?

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
What does our unwritten or uncodified constitution say about Parliament's obligations regarding referenda and manifesto policies?

 

Shurlock, I'm still waiting for your opinion on the moral obligations of our elected representatives towards the manifesto promises that they were elected on, and the decision in the referendum to leave the EU

 

Most were elected on manifesto promises that we would not be part of a customs union or the single market, and a promise to respect the referendum decision. Most represent constituencies that voted to leave the EU. As there is, as you say, a significant majority of remain MPs, is it a la la land fantasy to expect them to actually carry out the wishes of the voters who employ them to represent their wishes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
As I am Shurlock's lap dog apparently, I think I will continue to quote him for your pleasure GM.

 

As an aside GM, you may want to look back through the history of me and Shurlock - we have spent far more time disagreeing and trading insults over the years than we have agreeing on things. It just so happens that this is one of the things we do agree on.

 

Here's me quoting Dominic Raab and Andrea Leadsom from this article, published a week ago.

 

Dominic Raab told the Today programme this morning:"I think the Grieve amendment was predictable but what we need to understand is that resolutions of parliament pass as politically have some impact, but they are not legally binding. And therefore if the deal is voted down on Tuesday I think what will matter most of all will not be what parliament says in a motion - it will need legislation to stop Brexit - what will matter is the will and resolve in Number 10 Downing Street."

Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom made a similar statement. She was asked: "Are you saying that parliament could say, as a majority of parliament would, we don't want to go out with no deal, but the government could say, 'Sorry, that's what's going to happen', and it would then happen?"

She replied: "Parliament can certainly say that. But the issue is that the government is committed to leaving the European Union in line with the referendum and unless government were to do something completely different to change tack, or indeed to pass this deal, then we will be leaving the EU on 29 March next year without a deal."

"What MPs think is that they now have the power to stop it defaulting to no deal. And you're saying, no they don't?"

"Well, I can't see that they do. And I think that the issue is that the default position is no deal."

Still, as I am humouring you, I'd be interested in you explaining, in your own words, how you think Parliament can prevent a "no deal" Brexit, because Herbert has already made a fool of himself trying...

Edited by Guided Missile
To shoot Herbert Von W@nkstain down in flames...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
TBF, Wes started the Limp Bizkit thing when he talked about what he was gonna do to Shurlock.

 

"...and if my day keeps going this way I just might, break your ****ing face tonight."

 

I never said that or anything like it. You will no doubt be happy to show the alleged post , or apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Oh look, another Jihadi finding things to do with piano wire.

 

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1072495799265824768

 

What is it with 'winners' like JJ and al-Tenderi - and this idiot - that leads them to such violent, vengeful imagery?

 

As you are well aware (if you are a realist and honest with yourself) there are as many idiots on the remain side who post inane claptrap threatening all sorts of physical harm too. Also there are those like you who let puerile and infantile name-calling suffice as their particular bile of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Then why did you vote to make them poorer and give them worse prospects? Why would you do that to your own family members? Do you really hate them that much?

 

Having witnessed first hand how being in the Common Market/EEC/EU has held us back in our prosperity as a nation during most of my adult life, I made the rational decision from experience, that my family would be better off if we traded more with the larger outside World that is increasing its prosperity faster than the more stagnant EU. If I understand it correctly, you actually worked for the EU, so naturally you would therefore be loathe to accept that the better option for our medium to long term prosperity lies outside of the EU, but you are just a little European.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Here's me quoting Dominic Raab and Andrea Leadsom.

 

 

Still, as I am humouring you, I'd be interested in you explaining, in your own words, how you think Parliament can prevent a "no deal" Brexit, because Herbert has already made a fool of himself trying...

 

By citing an article that was discussing a completely different amendment from a year ago :lol:

 

A word of advice: learn to read or even know today’s date before you try debating someone who’s out of your league.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted
The **** wit couldn’t even unlock the car, I think Olly Robbins must have put the child locks on. All whilst her boss is waiting to see her.

 

 

How the **** is Corbyn not rinsing her?

 

I dread to think where they’d be with a half sensible opposition.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Is that what the "backstop" is they keep talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Shurlock, I'm still waiting for your opinion on the moral obligations of our elected representatives towards the manifesto promises that they were elected on, and the decision in the referendum to leave the EU

 

Most were elected on manifesto promises that we would not be part of a customs union or the single market, and a promise to respect the referendum decision. Most represent constituencies that voted to leave the EU. As there is, as you say, a significant majority of remain MPs, is it a la la land fantasy to expect them to actually carry out the wishes of the voters who employ them to represent their wishes?

 

What's your point Les? That manifestos are unenforceable? Yep. That they carry a moral obligation? The electoral consequences are mixed. Never mind that on one reading, May's deal respects the manifesto? How about other promises in the manifesto that are in tension with a no-deal scenario? Ultimately, you forget that while political parties publish manifestos and make promises, it is Parliament which passes legislation, not political parties. Per Vernon Bogdanor, manifestos do not provide a mandate for specific policies.

 

A referendum does provide that mandate. But without going over old ground, the 2016 referendum did not say how the UK would leave the EU - despite what you want to believe.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Having witnessed first hand how being in the Common Market/EEC/EU has held us back in our prosperity as a nation during most of my adult life, I made the rational decision from experience, that my family would be better off if we traded more with the larger outside World that is increasing its prosperity faster than the more stagnant EU. If I understand it correctly, you actually worked for the EU, so naturally you would therefore be loathe to accept that the better option for our medium to long term prosperity lies outside of the EU, but you are just a little European.

 

Sorry, I worked for the EU? What gives you that impression?

 

It's fine though, in 15 years when your Grandkids ask why you voted to leave, you can say "Well, it all started cos I hate Arabs. But it's fine, cos I do like Jews."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Where were you looking exactly?

 

http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4f626a1e-db03-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=602

 

As the economies of most areas in the World are developing at a far faster rate than the EU's it follows that we would have been better off trading with them instead of being tied to trade deals with the EU. That trend line in the graph looks pretty flat to me since the early nineties. Thanks for illustrating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Here's me quoting Dominic Raab and Andrea Leadsom from this article, published a week ago.

 

 

Still, as I am humouring you, I'd be interested in you explaining, in your own words, how you think Parliament can prevent a "no deal" Brexit, because Herbert has already made a fool of himself trying...

 

You're quoting Dominic Rabb thinking that his opinions on the matter are applicable. As he said, it's all down to the resolve in number 10 to drive the UK off a cliff. I don't think that resolve is there and there will be a massive push back from within Parliament.

 

So, from your point of view, you think we'll be leaving the EU on March 29th with no deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
As the economies of most areas in the World are developing at a far faster rate than the EU's it follows that we would have been better off trading with them instead of being tied to trade deals with the EU. That trend line in the graph looks pretty flat to me since the early nineties. Thanks for illustrating it.

 

That's growth per year? You do get that? In a developed economy you aren't going to see huge spikes in economic growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
You're quoting Dominic Rabb thinking that his opinions on the matter are applicable. As he said, it's all down to the resolve in number 10 to drive the UK off a cliff. I don't think that resolve is there and there will be a massive push back from within Parliament.

 

So, from your point of view, you think we'll be leaving the EU on March 29th with no deal?

 

I know. He's reeling after embarrassing himself by citing an article from 2017. Clearly the headbangers want to stress that the amendment is not legally binding, though even they concede its has political significance. Likewise, Leadsom, under cabinet collective responsibility, is attempting to sell May's deal and one way of doing that is to stress that the only alternative is a disastrous no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
That's growth per year? You do get that? In a developed economy you aren't going to see huge spikes in economic growth.

 

Ever since Les gaff over productivity, he's not been the most credible authority on the economy.

 

Yes developing economies tend to grow more rapidly, though as they approach the income levels of developed economies, growth rates slow. Moreover growth rates of developing economies tend to be more volatile - so while there may experience periods of rapid growth, they are also more likely to suffer extreme reversals. Finally many fast-growing economies get stuck at a certain level of income and fail to progress beyond that because they lack right institutional conditions - what some call the middle-income trap, though the term is contested.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Ever since Les gaff over productivity, he's not been the most credible authority on the economy.

 

Yes developing economies tend to grow more rapidly, though as they approach the income levels of developed economies, growth rates slow. Moreover growth rates of developing economies tend to be more volatile - so while there may experience periods of rapid growth, they are also more likely to suffer extreme reversals. Finally many fast-growing economies get stuck at a certain level of income and fail to progress beyond that because they lack right institutional conditions - what some call the middle-income trap, though the term is contested.

 

Well it's quite clear he has never studied economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
That's growth per year? You do get that? In a developed economy you aren't going to see huge spikes in economic growth.

 

Of course I get that. And pretty flat its been since the early nineties. As you are no doubt aware, our trade as a percentage is declining with the EU, and increasing with the rest of the world. And that is despite all the more recent additions there have been to the EU membership since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Of course I get that. And pretty flat its been since the early nineties. As you are no doubt aware, our trade as a percentage is declining with the EU, and increasing with the rest of the world. And that is despite all the more recent additions there have been to the EU membership since then.

 

Les any response to my comments on your brexitcentral article? Looked at c.9 of the Pink Book yet?

 

If not, I'll assume you agree with me pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Well it's quite clear he has never studied economics.

 

So all those who have studied economics all agree with each other do they? Even the most illustrious economists in history have differing opinions on what economic policy should be applied to different financial situations. It isn't an exact science, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So, from your point of view, you think we'll be leaving the EU on March 29th with no deal?
You'd better ask Herbert about the future. He's the one making a fortune gambling on currencies. My point was that if the Government determine it is in the the national interest to leave the EU without a deal, Parliament can't stop them. I still can't work out why you think they can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
So all those who have studied economics all agree with each other do they? Even the most illustrious economists in history have differing opinions on what economic policy should be applied to different financial situations. It isn't an exact science, is it?

 

Les have you done business in China?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted (edited)
So all those who have studied economics all agree with each other do they? Even the most illustrious economists in history have differing opinions on what economic policy should be applied to different financial situations. It isn't an exact science, is it?

 

What does the above graph have to do with economic strategy? It's showing the lifecycle of an economy, one that is maturing into a developed economy. What would you expect that graph to show it we were out of the EU then?

 

Not all economists agree, obviously, but the base principles tend to be pretty agreed upon. It's the finer principles of macro and micro policy that tends to differ.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
You'd better ask Herbert about the future. He's the one making a fortune gambling on currencies. My point was that if the Government determine it is in the the national interest to leave the EU without a deal, Parliament can't stop them. I still can't work out why you think they can.

 

I'm not asking Shurlock, I'm asking you? So what is your prediction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...