Stop
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
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!
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!
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!
This is a new stance. Was this communicated during the 2016 referendum? If not, what's happened to the democracy you keep talking about?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The opposition are... the opposition.
It's their job to oppose. Expecting anything else is naive.
Eh? What the feck you blithering on about now
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.
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.
Read on...
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.
He could also have laid the framework for future deals with the EU to make future negotiations smoother.
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.
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.
Don't worry , you've got Liz Truss now.
I just want to be clear.
We should leave, not pay the divorce bill, then go back to negotiate?
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.
The fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that
And you wonder why we are advocating for the ref requiring a super majority?
It’s all going to go very wellThe fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that
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:
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 agreedThe fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that
Our entire political system is failing.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Hehe. You’re literally clueless. I’m out.
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.The fecking arrogance to think the EU would even talk to you after that
If trade provides benefits even enemies will trade with each other. An the UK and EU would be far from enemies.
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.
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.
Jesus wept...
If literally spelling it out for you, with the terms direct from the EUs own official site doesn't help you, you are beyond help.
The USA have been trying to get the EU to favoutable trade terms for two decades but it is the mighty UK that would leave without paying the agreed bill, then go back to them asking for a deal?
If it was purely based on economic benefits the EU and US would have reached a trade agreement years ago rather than negotiating for a decade. The last comment from the EU side was that the agreement as proposed so far was "obsolete and no longer relevant" as an indication of how well the talks are going.
Also, there's huge benefits to the EU waiting for the financial sector to move out of London into another EU hub before seriously negotiating any agreement.
I'm more interested in the reasons that make you believe such arrogant aggression is justified. Your appalling grammar is tolerable but your unjustified sixth form smugness is unbearable. You have some points to make (your democratic point is shite but makes sense and your point about trade deals is partially correct). Why not try doing so in an articulate manner free from ridiculous resorts to dictionary definitions of words used by the tawdry campaigns of your Etonian elitists and underserved exclamations of superiority?
What you lack in subtlety you more than make up for in zealatory.
I dislike Javid more than any other I think. Though with Leadsom, JRM and BJ around it's hard to pick the one you dislike the most. He's a smarmy sod though.