Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Wibble said:
It is impotent because it is incompetent and has been for a long time.

And your repeated schoolyard taunt of cowardice is ludicrous. An opposition isn't cowardly for not falling for an obvious trap.
Click to expand...

This current government hasn't had the chance to do anything to demonstrate its incompetence.

I have no doubt it will be incompetent, given the chance, but as yet it's done nothing.

It's hands are tied, it's powerless.

As a country we effectively have no leadership at this point. How is anyone happy about that. All because it might prevent us leaving in October rather than January.
 
Drainy said:
Well yes, because any changes will be expensive to implement and idiots use the ballot to protest the government.

You will deny it because you're obviously a leaver but a lot of people voted to leave in protest of the Tories.
Click to expand...

Successive governments I'd argue, not just Tories. Immigration was the major issue at that time and a lot of people blamed New Labour for that for their decisions in the mid 2000s.
 
Drainy said:
Well yes, because any changes will be expensive to implement and idiots use the ballot to protest the government.

You will deny it because you're obviously a leaver but a lot of people voted to leave in protest of the Tories.


Edited as wasn't clear that I meant 'one of those people' as in will deny anything to do with brexit, rather than one of the idiots who voted to protest the Tories
Click to expand...

Of course people used it as a protest vote. That doesn't change anything anymore than those who voted for the status quo because they feared change.

History is full of these types of voters.
 
WensleyMU said:
Of course people used it as a protest vote. That doesn't change anything anymore than those who voted for the status quo because they feared change.

History is full of these types of voters.
Click to expand...

Wow.

We are happy with how things are so let's keep things the same is the same as 'I hate how things are and I hate you and want you to know it'

We're screwing up the country based on the vote. There should have been a threshold to allow for idiots using the wrong forum to vent frustration.
 
WensleyMU said:
This current government hasn't had the chance to do anything to demonstrate its incompetence.

I have no doubt it will be incompetent, given the chance, but as yet it's done nothing.

It's hands are tied, it's powerless.

As a country we effectively have no leadership at this point. How is anyone happy about that. All because it might prevent us leaving in October rather than January.
Click to expand...

They could demonstrate some competence by negotiating this Brexit deal they’ve been telling voters would be such a piece of piss to do since 2016.
 
Drainy said:
Wow.

We are happy with how things are so let's keep things the same is the same as 'I hate how things are and I hate you and want you to know it'

We're screwing up the country based on the vote. There should have been a threshold to allow for idiots using the wrong forum to vent frustration.
Click to expand...

Democracy isn't for you.

Weighting votes in favour of one option is effectively vote rigging. May as well return to the days where only some people could vote eh?

Ridiculous!
 
WensleyMU said:
I believe these clowns have had 3 years and have achieved the sum total of nothing.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the Tories who have achieved a divided country about to be torn apart for the one purpose of allowing the rich fecks to keep hiding their wealth? That's much better!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
They could demonstrate some competence by negotiating this Brexit deal they’ve been telling voters would be such a piece of piss to do since 2016.
Click to expand...

Erm...

We need to leave before we can negotiate that deal.

Another who seems to miss the fact that this withdrawal deal is not the future trade deal...

This is basic stuff FFS.

Please, will some of you get a clue. The fact you have the audacity to criticise elements of the leave vote while being so ill ill informed is staggering.

We are not at the stage of negotiating the trade deals. That can only occur after leaving!
 
WensleyMU said:
Erm...

We need to leave before we can negotiate that deal.

Another who seems to miss the fact that this withdrawal deal is not the future trade deal...

This is basic stuff FFS.

Please, will some of you get a clue. The fact you have the audacity to criticise elements of the leave vote while being so ill ill informed is staggering.

We are not at the stage of negotiating the trade deals. That can only occur after leaving!
Click to expand...
This is a new stance. Was this communicated during the 2016 referendum? If not, what's happened to the democracy you keep talking about?
 
WensleyMU said:
Erm...

We need to leave before we can negotiate that deal.

Another who seems to miss the fact that this withdrawal deal is not the future trade deal...

This is basic stuff FFS.

Please, will some of you get a clue. The fact you have the audacity to criticise elements of the leave vote while being so ill ill informed is staggering.

We are not at the stage of negotiating the trade deals. That can only occur after leaving!
Click to expand...
So you want to leave, plunge the country into a recession and increased policitcal instability and THEN negotiate a deal.

Usually you're supposed to try negotiate deals from a stronger position, not a weaker one.
 
WensleyMU said:
Democracy isn't for you.

Weighting votes in favour of one option is effectively vote rigging. May as well return to the days where only some people could vote eh?

Ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Democracy has a lot of requirements and one of them is that the voters are informed.

Should we have referendum on bringing back the death penalty? If we did should there be a threshold? If you don't agree do you hate democracy?

We have a representative democracy because the general public know less than feck all, are infantilised, easily misled and vote emotionally.

Yes direct democracy is flawed as all hell and to destroy your country based on a 50% plus 1 vote when you know that the votes are not a rational reasoned discussion with an undertood choice that everyone engaged in is madness.

This isn't deciding whether to go to the chippy or have Chinese for tea, to change the status quo there really needs to be a more majority agreement in the country than 50% plus one, otherwise let the elected representatives make the political decisions.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
This is a new stance. Was this communicated during the 2016 referendum? If not, what's happened to the democracy you keep talking about?
Click to expand...

These are the terms of article 50.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49.

We first negotiate the terms of withdrawal, then all treaties cease once that withdrawal occurs. You then begin trade talks.

If we have no withdrawal agreement, we leave, cease all treaties and then negotiate.

Did people actually think we were discussing trade deals. Jesus Christ!
 
Drainy said:
Democracy has a lot of requirements and one of them is that the voters are informed.

Should we have referendum on bringing back the death penalty? If we did should there be a threshold? If you don't agree do you hate democracy?

We have a representative democracy because the general public know less than feck all, are infantilised, easily misled and vote emotionally.

Yes direct democracy is flawed as all hell and to destroy your country based on a 50% plus 1 vote when you know that the votes are not a rational reasoned discussion with an undertood choice that everyone engaged in is madness.

This isn't deciding whether to go to the chippy or have Chinese for tea, to change the status quo there really needs to be a more majority agreement in the country than 50% plus one, otherwise let the elected representatives make the political decisions.
Click to expand...

Oh dear...

Democracy has absolutely no requirement for the electorate to be informed. Hell, democracy literally allows for parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party to stand and be elected on the basis of being a joke.
 
WensleyMU said:
These are the terms of article 50.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49.

We first negotiate the terms of withdrawal, then all treaties cease once that withdrawal occurs. You then begin trade talks.

If we have no withdrawal agreement, we leave, cease all treaties and then negotiate.

Did people actually think we were discussing trade deals. Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...

Strange how the argument has turned on its head. Said this over three years ago.

Of course there are no trade deals, you're years away from having a trade deal.

The Tories + DUP had a majority in the HoC and could have voted through the WA but they didn't - who is incompetent now. To help there was a transition period

And a free trade deal will only partially solve the problems you are going to have.
 
WensleyMU said:
Oh dear...

Democracy has absolutely no requirement for the electorate to be informed. Hell, democracy literally allows for parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party to stand and be elected on the basis of being a joke.
Click to expand...

Then what gives a vote legitimacy for the purpose of deciding on a country's course?

Great that you are putting voting MRLP on the same level of protest votes during the Brexit Referendum, but in a parliamentary first past the post system the protest amounts to the square root of naff all, in a referendum it has changed the direction of the country for the worse.
 
Wibble said:
It is impotent because it is incompetent and has been for a long time.

And your repeated schoolyard taunt of cowardice is ludicrous. An opposition isn't cowardly for not falling for an obvious trap.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. The opposition are the opposite of cowards. For once they are standing up to a bullying government who so obviously has no intention of accepting the law of the country.
 
WensleyMU said:
The government is without question impotent, not incompetent, it hasn't been given the opportunity to demonstrate its incompetence.

The opposition are cowards. They have been given the opportunity to demonstrate this.
Click to expand...
The opposition are... the opposition.

It's their job to oppose. Expecting anything else is naive.
 
WensleyMU said:
Erm...

We need to leave before we can negotiate that deal.

Another who seems to miss the fact that this withdrawal deal is not the future trade deal...

This is basic stuff FFS.

Please, will some of you get a clue. The fact you have the audacity to criticise elements of the leave vote while being so ill ill informed is staggering.

We are not at the stage of negotiating the trade deals. That can only occur after leaving!
Click to expand...
Eh? What the feck you blithering on about now
 
WensleyMU said:
These are the terms of article 50.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49.

We first negotiate the terms of withdrawal, then all treaties cease once that withdrawal occurs. You then begin trade talks.

If we have no withdrawal agreement, we leave, cease all treaties and then negotiate.

Did people actually think we were discussing trade deals. Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...

Not trade deals with the EU, but it was Liam Fox's job to start securing trade deals for when we left the EU. He's not done a very good job, but then again it is Liam Fox.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Strange how the argument has turned on its head. Said this over three years ago.

Of course there are no trade deals, you're years away from having a trade deal.

The Tories + DUP had a majority in the HoC and could have voted through the WA but they didn't - who is incompetent now. To help there was a transition period

And a free trade deal will only partially solve the problems you are going to have.
Click to expand...

First, thank god someone else has actually read article 50.

And I don't particularly disagree with everything else you have put, only I would add that in hindsight, many on the opposing side have since realised that Mays deal, while far from great, allowed us to progress to the next stage.

Which is why some labour MPs tried to bring it back to the table, and possibly why, giving the benefit of doubt, Johnson wanted to prorogue parliament. I accept this isn't likely, but it would allow for it to be returned.
 
I love how this fool blathers on in here like he's a Tory on skynews trying to con the nation with party lines. At least they know they're talking shit it's depressing some viewers believe it.
 
esmufc07 said:
Not trade deals with the EU, but it was Liam Fox's job to start securing trade deals for when we left the EU. He's not done a very good job, but then again it is Liam Fox.
Click to expand...

He could also have laid the framework for future deals with the EU to make future negotiations smoother.
 
WensleyMU said:
First, thank god someone else has actually read article 50.

And I don't particularly disagree with everything else you have put, only I would add that in hindsight, many on the opposing side have since realised that Mays deal, while far from great, allowed us to progress to the next stage.

Which is why some labour MPs tried to bring it back to the table, and possibly why, giving the benefit of doubt, Johnson wanted to prorogue parliament. I accept this isn't likely, but it would allow for it to be returned.
Click to expand...

If the Uk is going to leave with an agreement then this is the agreement that has to be ratified unless the red line is changed and the border is in the Irish Sea and yes it does get you through to the next stage.
MPs on all sides voted against it for different reasons, some because they want to remain, some because they think they can do better, some because they don't want a deal.

At some point parliament has to agree as to what it's going to do - seems a long way off but time is running out - the Uk have basically got until the end of 2020 to be gone or stay.
 
WensleyMU said:
He could also have laid the framework for future deals with the EU to make future negotiations smoother.
Click to expand...

What he was actually doing was extending the deals with non EU but EEA countries like Switzerland through the transition period but then Johnson lied the other day and said he had £89bn of deals ready which of course wouldn't happen if there was no transition period.
 
T00lsh3d said:
I just want to be clear.

We should leave, not pay the divorce bill, then go back to negotiate?
Click to expand...

Erm, no. We should set the terms of withdrawal, leave, then negotiate.

If parliament will not agree a WA, then we have one option, to leave without one, and then negotiate.

I don't see anyone putting an alternative on the table either.
 
WensleyMU said:
Oh dear...

Democracy has absolutely no requirement for the electorate to be informed. Hell, democracy literally allows for parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party to stand and be elected on the basis of being a joke.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why we are advocating for the ref requiring a super majority?
 
WensleyMU said:
These are the terms of article 50.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49.

We first negotiate the terms of withdrawal, then all treaties cease once that withdrawal occurs. You then begin trade talks.

If we have no withdrawal agreement, we leave, cease all treaties and then negotiate.

Did people actually think we were discussing trade deals. Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...
The Government thought we were discussing trade deals. Hence, the prolonged discussing of a trade deal! Jesus Christ indeed. Have you missed the last 3 years of negotiations and also the leave campaign promises of 2016?

1) Look at the leave campaigns claims over 2016. A no deal Brexit was claimed to be an impossibility.

2)You conveniently missed a key section: "...the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

I wonder if you are naturally obtuse or just pick and choose when to lose your comprehension skills.
 
Last edited:
ArjenIsM3 said:
The fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that :lol:
Click to expand...

Surely EU could take it to some International body too? Also it would make the UK look absolutely pathetic on the global stage and would I'm sure make it easier to negotiate other deals when it's already been shown UK won't do what was agreed
 
WensleyMU said:
Erm...

We need to leave before we can negotiate that deal.

Another who seems to miss the fact that this withdrawal deal is not the future trade deal...

This is basic stuff FFS.

Please, will some of you get a clue. The fact you have the audacity to criticise elements of the leave vote while being so ill ill informed is staggering.

We are not at the stage of negotiating the trade deals. That can only occur after leaving!
Click to expand...

Hehe. You’re literally clueless. I’m out.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
The fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that :lol:
Click to expand...

You talk like the UK isn't one of the world's richest nation's, one of the top 4 trading partners of all major EU members, or the financial capital of Europe and the world.

If trade provides benefits even enemies will trade with each other. An the UK and EU would be far from enemies.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hehe. You’re literally clueless. I’m out.
Click to expand...

The irony of people with absolutely no clue calling others clueless.

The terms of A50 are posted above. Educate yourself before engaging in that which you have no clue. Fecking hilarious.
 
WensleyMU said:
The irony of people with absolutely no clue calling others clueless.

The terms of A50 are posted above. Educate yourself before engaging in that which you have no clue. Fecking hilarious.
Click to expand...

Mate, watch your tone. And you are three years late, you clearly haven't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't be acting like you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.