Johnson & Gove time to own up and tell the truth as the Leave Campaign accepts it broke the law

[festive]

How has being in the EU dented our innovation, what specifics is it about the EU that has stopped us innovating? As what you wrote is just free from anything substantive. Blah blah endless 1 dimensional reasoning.

I haven' forgotten you and will come back later. For the moment im busy saving the world.

 

[festive]

You sad little man.

There is nothing about you which is rightfully a source of pride. You shame our country. I do not feel proud that you are British - I feel contempt for you and wish you weren't.

Put your handbag away step away from the keyboard and relax...

 

[noseall]

What do you think?

I thought Brexit would be toxic from the outset. It has turned out much worse. People don't have the appetite for it and TM's alternative is worse than just staying in - and people now know it. There are no workable solutions to the Irish thing, being tabled either.

I honestly don't know what will happen now. No-deal looks the most likely.

 

[transam]

I thought Brexit would be toxic from the outset. It has turned out much worse. People don't have the appetite for it and TM's alternative is worse than just staying in - and people now know it. There are no workable solutions to the Irish thing, being tabled either.

I honestly don't know what will happen now. No-deal looks the most likely.

dont despair noseall dont get dis-heartened noseall eventually it will all be over

soon be christmas

 

[festive]

How has being in the EU dented our innovation, what specifics is it about the EU that has stopped us innovating? As what you wrote is just free from anything substantive.



So how do countries make FTA agreements? Wait on so they prefer trade deals to WTO terms only, good you understand that. But then in a trade agreement what matters is the balance of power, have you not read Japan will not offer us the same terms as the EU - why would they?



What is the name of this state? How many directives do you disagree with? How many of these directives did the UK vote in favour of, abstained and disagreed with?



So change is the only argument you have and then you cannot decide what is bad as it's conjecture isn't an argument its stupid. I can jump off a high cliff but it's only conjecture if something bad may happen to me. Ridiculous



How will you be affected? Why will your position go oversees? You seem to want to argue that you made the decision even if it will affect you because you see a greater benefit which you still haven't been able to articulate.

My god reading this back tonight either you had too many coffees before your next risk analysis meeting or you are close to a breakdown. A) im not willing to engage in a ridiculous nit picking argument here. and B) im getting too old to be frittering my life away on a pesky forum to someone ill never meet.

Ok Japan, you're right why didn't we get a deal like that? Simple, imagine the outrage. EU is a business afterall. Its what we could of got though joining for the first time not leaving.

Innovation and trading currently we cannot just do as we want right, part of the reason we want to leave. No i dont have a full bullet point of directives.

OK so alot of trade with the EU is via WTO but yes that doesn't necessarily mean Uk will benefit the same way i know. Still its another one of those i have no professional opinion about only from what i hear from people in the city etc who actually give a very split opinion. I dont think anyone knows for sure, apart from you of course

"I can jump off a high cliff but it's only conjecture if something bad may happen to me. Ridiculous" - what the **** is this? I need to reread this again. No you're right. But it is conjecture, as noone knows, dont you get it? Because noone including you can give an accurate prediction on what may happen, unless you are about to surprise me. It seems about what may happen to us long term if we went hard or soft. For example Mervyn King? He thinks it wouldnt be so bad as some make out?

Anyway that's enough for now, off to google more info and go chase some more foreigners out of town, and then iron my union jack god save the queen

 

[festive]

I thought Brexit would be toxic from the outset. It has turned out much worse. People don't have the appetite for it and TM's alternative is worse than just staying in - and people now know it. There are no workable solutions to the Irish thing, being tabled either.

I honestly don't know what will happen now. No-deal looks the most likely.

Agree to an extent, i fully expected the EU to play hardball and give us the worse possible deal. What surprised me was how the MPs acted on the majority vote to leave we saw the stats on how many MPs voted remain, a high percentage, the same MP's have since 2016 attempted to reverse the referendum result, that's collectively all parties involved here. And why the Tories voted in a remainer PM to lead Brexit!!? I guess you lefties on here will always point the finger, but we all know the worst case scenario for either side is for the other side to do something successfully and gain support of the population, which ironically is what they should be doing collectively in there. That was evident from all the results in mv1 mv2 and all indicative votes that followed Labour were blocking progress(meanwhile their manifesto agreed with most of TM's crap deal). So in the end it's easy as a remainer to say 'see told you so i knew it would be like this' no, i disagree here, we needed a tougher negotiator to start with, and a mandate to ensure all MP's voted to progress Brexit and NOT to block progress from a personal or party based strategy, and i really don't believe Labour would of done a better job.
You could copy and paste the below to mv1/mv2 and all indicative votes....that's just opposing for the sake of opposing.

 

[SirGalahad]

My god reading this back tonight either you had too many coffees before your next risk analysis meeting or you are close to a breakdown.

You had me in tears.

Simple, imagine the outrage

That's not even an argument.

Innovation and trading currently we cannot just do as we want right, part of the reason we want to leave.

Still not one example.

Anyway can see you have a great sense of humour. Enjoy the rest of your day.

As to King, I will raise you in the nutter stakes with Minford.

 

[jasonzyx]

You have deduced/framed for your argument. I prefer not to be told and instead make my own assumption. Not telling you anything just referring to factual evidence,

WTF does that mean?

see below 'results by voting areas' those blue bits ok?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resul..._Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

I will try a bit more slowly for you.
When the argument is presented that Scotland, NI, Gibraltar, and other regions of UK voted to remain in EU, Brexiteers claim that that is an invalid argument because the referendum was UK wide and a bloc vote for the whole ò UK.
In which case, it is also an invalid argument to suggest that individual MPs should be concerned with how their constituents voted, because it doesn't matter. It was a UK wide referendum, en bloc, and individual countries, regions, etc are subject to the whole referendum result, not just the result of the individual constituencies.
An alternative view is that it is immaterial how the individual constituencies voted, as long as there are 48% to 52% of MPS.

But then we must also remember that the referendum was advisory, not legally binding.

And i really dont give a pish what the sweaty socks say they wanted to leave the UK remember but bottled it, and look how much they are regretting it now, oh the irony.

WTF does this mean?

 

[festive]

WTF does that mean?


I will try a bit more slowly for you.
When the argument is presented that Scotland, NI, Gibraltar, and other regions of UK voted to remain in EU, Brexiteers claim that that is an invalid argument because the referendum was UK wide and a bloc vote for the whole ò UK.
In which case, it is also an invalid argument to suggest that individual MPs should be concerned with how their constituents voted, because it doesn't matter. It was a UK wide referendum, en bloc, and individual countries, regions, etc are subject to the whole referendum result, not just the result of the individual constituencies.
An alternative view is that it is immaterial how the individual constituencies voted, as long as there are 48% to 52% of MPS.

But then we must also remember that the referendum was advisory, not legally binding.


WTF does this mean?

Jason, im assuming nothing but we are just 'misaligned' when it comes to understanding here, lets keep it nice . My original observation was about MPs their constituents and how they voted, for example if we attend a local parish meeting and unanimously vote for X one would expect our counsellor or representative to carry that motion, ok? The same as a majority constituent votes on an issue, their MP may well act in favour of that motion. I don't think i need to explain anymore you know exactly what i mean being deliberately obtuse is ok if you enjoy that. Hence 'you being told' its based on x which to all intents and purposes has nothing to do with my point of reference, and including 'brexiteers' that well known breed of neanderthal racist tribe bereft of understanding and intelligence and logical reasoning, like 'them remainer' people which are in fact a very broad spectrum of people voting for many different reasons also, to which i completely get why they are.

And more WTF , Oh maybe you are a Scottish(sweaty socks!) person yourself it was my attempt at irony about the Scots you mentioned (dont worry most of my family are!) Scottish independence 2014 lacking the balls to actually do it, and now look how much they regret it.

Had you said to me buddy i voted leave, id perhaps accept more this is a misunderstanding, but so far on here, my god everyone who has voted remain who i have debated with has been in utter denial of both sides of the story here, i don't understand why? I did vote leave by the way and i despise Labour and the Tories and no i don't follow Timmy Mallet or whatever his name is here have a small glass of sherry.

 

[jasonzyx]

My original observation was about MPs their constituents and how they voted, for example if we attend a local parish meeting and unanimously vote for X one would expect our counsellor or representative to carry that motion, ok? The same as a majority constituent votes on an issue, their MP may well act in favour of that motion.

I've deleted your irrelevant bits of the discussion.
Firstly: MPs are elected as the decision makers on our behalf, not merely to carry out our wishes. They campaign so that we can judge their intelligence, their shared values with our values. We then give them our trust to make the difficult decisions for us. We do not specify which decisions they are allowed to take, and which they are not allowed to take. Often, the decisions are too complex for us to decide fairly or appropriately. Brexit was not a typical example of that complexity. It was a perfect example. On such issues, the MPs rarely meet with their constituents and discuss the options. They do meet with party members from all over the country. So they are influenced by that wide representation of those members. We can communicate with our MPs and let them know our preferences. They are still not obliged to follow our requests. They are free to make the most informed decision that they feel is appropriate. As you rightly say, we can choose not to vote for them next time around because we decided that their values were different to ours. But only a fool makes such a choice on a single issue, unless that single issue is ideologically important. E.g. Abortion, same-sex marriage, Brexit??
So if Brexit is ideologically that important to you, you are free to not vote for that candidate in the future. But that is accepting that Brexit is an ideological value to you, not an economic value. I.e. your choice is not based on economic costs or benefits, but on ideological beliefs.

Secondly: Brexiteers can not make the argument on the one hand, Scotland and NI (or London) cannot remain in EU because the vote was a UK wide en bloc result. Therefore they must also leave. Then in a different argument argue that individual constituencies should be considered. It was either a constituency by constituency vote, or it was a UK wide en bloc referendum. You can't have your cake and eat it! Although you do appear to believe that you can.

 

[festive]

I've deleted your irrelevant bits of the discussion.
Often, the decisions are too complex for us to decide fairly or appropriately. add naueseam .

No That's fine i shall also delete your irrelevant bits to frame my argument.

They are so we just said 'yes' lets leave please and let you deal with the complexities offboarding us. Not 'lets leave as long as we are happy because in years to come we will all become armchair experts and somehow deduce it wasn't the deal we wanted' (we can use this argument for joining or leaving) and now we want another vote.

I repeat i voted leave not on lies not on anything i don't feel hoodwinked or deceived, its seems evident remain voters who want to use this excuse because i haven't heard anyone voting leave use this, i have no idea what these campaigns said? All i know is i want to leave, like i did then and now? You voted remain, and you lost, therefore you are desperate to cling onto any excuse for us to remain, because a) you didn't get your way and b) you feel it's economical suicide for the country. I get it i can see you want to reverse things it's ok.

Watching question time last night, it was a relief to see some level headed talk going on Jeremy Wright for example (oh no the man in blue the opposition the spawn of evil and lucifer you say!) spoke alot of sense, didn't agree with all of it, but i was nodding like..like a nodding obedient dog

 

[jasonzyx]

The only people that are breaking or trying to change law now are all the MPS ignoring their constituents majority that voted and won the democratic victory of LEAVE

We are frequently told by NI, Scottish, etc, Brexit voters that the country voted as a bloc, not as individual countries, and certainly not as individual constituencies.
So that argument is simply invalid.

No That's fine i shall also delete your irrelevant bits to frame my argument.

You are not deleting the relevant bits, as far as the discussion has been going so far. You are deleting the bits that are not relevant to your (now) shifted narrative.
The discussion was about your initial concern with the behaviour of MPs that I was addressing. I thought you had understood that.
But that's fine. If you prefer a different discussion.

If you are now realising that the issue was too complex for you, but you voted anyway, I cannot take issue with your argument.
So what was it that decided it for you, your lack of understanding of the economic costs and benefits, or just an ideological issue?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Suppose we hadn't lost that fictional £600M/week, where would that money be now? My guess is not in our pockets...

 

[jasonzyx]

Suppose we hadn't lost that fictional £600M/week, where would that money be now? My guess is not in our pockets...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Brexiteers can not make the argument on the one hand, Scotland and NI (or London) cannot remain in EU because the vote was a UK wide en bloc result. Therefore they must also leave. Then in a different argument argue that individual constituencies should be considered.

That would be true were you talking about people who do logic, reason, and intelligent argument.

But you're not.

It was either a constituency by constituency vote, or it was a UK wide en bloc referendum. You can't have your cake and eat it! Although you do appear to believe that you can.

Of course he does - that is a fundamental tenet of the quitlings.