Bit of Brexit info required. | Page 130 | Vital Football

Bit of Brexit info required.

Lienking said:
I don't have any evidence, but they're your claims! No security info, no access to Galileo, Euratom etc. Because we won't accept free movement of EU citizens and European Courts, we suddenly become so untrustworthy that the EU pull the plug on everything!! (IF they do!)
Click to expand...
Your claims, just in case you forgot.....

You have just summed up every reason to leave the EU. An organisation that is so tied up in dogma they are quite happy to risk the security of all their citizens and kill people because they have to protect their data !!

I’m unsure where you managed to determine that those where my claims?

I simply pointed out that by leaving the EU, we leave the Galileo program.
The EU did initially invite international cooperation on the project, but after being let down by them, it was decided that the program would be Nationlised as an EU project. That was in 2006, we signed up to that mandate.

Anyway a couple of billion pounds, and 12 years later it’s rather disingenuous to claim the EU is to blame for this. We chose to leave the EU and this project.

The Euratom is even more interesting. That’s an independent Organization, it’s an entirely separate entity to the EU predating it by a number of years.
The UK unilaterally decided to leave Euratom, because it uses the ECJ as it’s court, nothing more.
So due to the dogma of our Government, people needing radiotherapy could have their treatment put at risk.

Maybe if these facts had been plastered on the side of a bus, some people may have carried out a bit of research into what leave really did mean
 
Last edited:
radfordinlondon said:
I think the issues are genuine but the solution they have chosen is appallingly counter productive.
EU should have been giving extra money for those communities encountering large numbers of new people and other reforms. It's all about working together and we lose out when we don't.
Click to expand...
Amen.

Nobody cared about the EU since the 80s or just into the 90s until 2015. Fabricated bogeyman.
 
Feco said:
So who won?
Click to expand...

You seem to be losing the plot on this one! What has "who won" got to do with anything? The debate was whether it was an anonymous vote. The papers have a list of who over 200 of the voters say they voted for. Narrows it down rather a lot for the other "anonymous ones". Sarah Wollaston should also know better than tweet photographs of her vote.
 
You talk about "the deal" as though it solves problems. All it does is kick the can down the road till after we have paid the EU £39 billion. The Eurozone is stopping quantitive easing, even though the eurozone is already growing slower than the UK. Unemployment in the Calais region is around 15%. Will they really want to increase it when we move shipping to other areas if they cause delays. NOW is the time to sort things out, not keep kicking the can down the road.
 
Lienking said:
You seem to be losing the plot on this one! What has "who won" got to do with anything? The debate was whether it was an anonymous vote. The papers have a list of who over 200 of the voters say they voted for. Narrows it down rather a lot for the other "anonymous ones". Sarah Wollaston should also know better than tweet photographs of her vote.
Click to expand...
And as part of that debate I asked who won which I assumed was the whole purpose of the process, anonymous voting or not.
You seem unable to answer that question. Not for the first time though is it?

I genuinely thought elections where about winning, but you apparently think not.
Should we apply that logic to the referendum too?
 
Lienking said:
You seem to be losing the plot on this one! What has "who won" got to do with anything? The debate was whether it was an anonymous vote. The papers have a list of who over 200 of the voters say they voted for. Narrows it down rather a lot for the other "anonymous ones". Sarah Wollaston should also know better than tweet photographs of her vote.
Click to expand...
And as part of that debate I asked who won, which surely was the point of the process in the first place, anonymous voting or note.
You seem unable to answer a relatively easy question. Not for the first time though is it?

Now according to you this election is not about winning.
Should we apply that logic to the referendum too?
 
Lienking said:
You talk about "the deal" as though it solves problems. All it does is kick the can down the road till after we have paid the EU £39 billion. The Eurozone is stopping quantitive easing, even though the eurozone is already growing slower than the UK. Unemployment in the Calais region is around 15%. Will they really want to increase it when we move shipping to other areas if they cause delays. NOW is the time to sort things out, not keep kicking the can down the road.
Click to expand...

Here we go again with these wild claims about what ‘we’will do.
Do you realise that the capacity of each port, the number of boats on different routes is limited? You will find that many berths are boat class specific too, You can’t just ‘move’ shipping around at will.
Logistics is way more complex than you could ever imagine.

Who is this ‘we’ by the way. Do you speak for Honda, BMW, Jaguar, Toyota now?
Do you not think that if obstacles are put in the way of parts getting from Europe to their UK factories, they may just move the factories closer to the parts?
Ford have already stated that will happen. BMW-Mini’s new factory is in Holland.

These business are global, they won’t be pushed around by ‘we’
 
Feco said:
And as part of that debate I asked who won which I assumed was the whole purpose of the process, anonymous voting or not.
You seem unable to answer that question. Not for the first time though is it?

I genuinely thought elections where about winning, but you apparently think not.
Should we apply that logic to the referendum too?
Click to expand...

You're totally missing the point. I haven't said anything about who won. I couldn't really care less who won, so what has that got to do with me?The only posts I have made on this relate to ITTO (I think) saying the vote was ANONYMOUS. Technically it was, but when over 200 Conservatives say who they voted for, it doesn't make the other votes very anonymous.

If you list out questions, I will answer them. Been out all day, so probably missed a lot of posts.

Talking of not answering questions no one has yet answered whether or not they believe THE DEFAULT POSITION IS, UNLESS PARLIAMENT DOES SOMETHING, WE JUST LEAVE. Guardian, BBC, article 50 and various other sources say this.

I don't believe Parliament will do nothing, but it is a FACT that that is what happens. If you, ITTO and anyone else know any better let me know, and post a link. It needs to be factual not Kenneth Clarke's wishful thinking!

Parliament is running out of time. If they extend article 50, or pull it altogether, they will have to do this WITHOUT a public vote, as there isn't time for one. It takes 12 weeks apparently to just check the question!! (Whatever it would be).

Will be interesting to see what happens if Parliament goes back on the will of 17.4 million people BEFORE there has even been a vote!
 
Last edited:
I've noticed, quite recently actually, and I hadn't realised the full extent of it, but, if you look at a map carefully you might be surprised to see, as I was, that Dover is pretty much our nearest bit to mainland Europe! Apparently that makes it quite a popular shipping route by all accounts because the slow bit, by sea, is shorter than it would otherwise be if you, y'know, went across a somewhat thicker bit of sea. Who knew? Can I be prime minister now?
 
in_the_top_one said:
I've noticed, quite recently actually, and I hadn't realised the full extent of it, but, if you look at a map carefully you might be surprised to see, as I was, that Dover is pretty much our nearest bit to mainland Europe! Apparently that makes it quite a popular shipping route by all accounts because the slow bit, by sea, is shorter than it would otherwise be if you, y'know, went across a somewhat thicker bit of sea. Who knew? Can I be prime minister now?
Click to expand...

Is that ur raab impression or Toms
 
No need for insults lads. I know you are pathetic gutless antidemocratic remainers ...but just please stop with the hurtful sniping and insults:tongue:
 
in_the_top_one said:
I've noticed, quite recently actually, and I hadn't realised the full extent of it, but, if you look at a map carefully you might be surprised to see, as I was, that Dover is pretty much our nearest bit to mainland Europe! Apparently that makes it quite a popular shipping route by all accounts because the slow bit, by sea, is shorter than it would otherwise be if you, y'know, went across a somewhat thicker bit of sea. Who knew? Can I be prime minister now?
Click to expand...

Must admit I hadn't realised until he said that, that we only import 16% of our stuff through there. In fact according to this we only import 6% of our volume through Dover.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...al-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
 
Lienking said:
You're totally missing the point. I haven't said anything about who won. I couldn't really care less who won, so what has that got to do with me?The only posts I have made on this relate to ITTO (I think) saying the vote was ANONYMOUS. Technically it was, but when over 200 Conservatives say who they voted for, it doesn't make the other votes very anonymous.

If you list out questions, I will answer them. Been out all day, so probably missed a lot of posts.

Talking of not answering questions no one has yet answered whether or not they believe THE DEFAULT POSITION IS, UNLESS PARLIAMENT DOES SOMETHING, WE JUST LEAVE. Guardian, BBC, article 50 and various other sources say this.

I don't believe Parliament will do nothing, but it is a FACT that that is what happens. If you, ITTO and anyone else know any better let me know, and post a link. It needs to be factual not Kenneth Clarke's wishful thinking!

Parliament is running out of time. If they extend article 50, or pull it altogether, they will have to do this WITHOUT a public vote, as there isn't time for one. It takes 12 weeks apparently to just check the question!! (Whatever it would be).

Will be interesting to see what happens if Parliament goes back on the will of 17.4 million people BEFORE there has even been a vote!
Click to expand...

But was your point?
All elections are anonymous, even this one, other than a handful on either side, no one knows who voted for who with certainty.

Regarding the questions, unfortunately I don’t have time to trawl back through 120 pages.

Regarding the default position, we can argue all we like, the truth is that the Government has to have an approved plan by 21st January, and if not a revised plan within 5 days ( that date seems to change) or the house can force the running from then on.
Whatever happens, deal, no deal, no Brexit, the house has to approve it before it can progress,
Nicky Morgan raised a valid point on that last night, regarding passing of the legislation on the remaining time.

So you are correct, the house has to do something, as they were informed by Ken Clarke.

I don’t believe the we could extend Article 50 as that, I believe, requires agreement of all the remaining 27 countries. Can’t see that happening.
We now know we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally, so I guess that would have to be the way. Two more years of this...we would be pages in front of the fisHcake thread by then.

You keep mentioning the will of the 17.4m people who voted to leave must be respected.
Does that mean that the other 40m people who live here and didn’t vote leave (anonymously or not) do not have a view or right to participate in this process?
I think most now want a solution that lets us move forward without damaging the country for years to come.

Maybe it’s time everyone got realistic on what can actually be achieved.
 
Feco said:
Regarding the default position, we can argue all we like, the truth is that the Government has to have an approved plan by 21st January, and if not a revised plan within 5 days ( that date seems to change) or the house can force the running from then on.
Whatever happens, deal, no deal, no Brexit, the house has to approve it before it can progress,
Nicky Morgan raised a valid point on that last night, regarding passing of the legislation on the remaining time.

So you are correct, the house has to do something, as they were informed by Ken Clarke.

I don’t believe the we could extend Article 50 as that, I believe, requires agreement of all the remaining 27 countries. Can’t see that happening.
We now know we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally, so I guess that would have to be the way. Two more years of this...we would be pages in front of the fisHcake thread by then.

You keep mentioning the will of the 17.4m people who voted to leave must be respected.
Does that mean that the other 40m people who live here and didn’t vote leave (anonymously or not) do not have a view or right to participate in this process?
I think most now want a solution that lets us move forward without damaging the country for years to come.

Maybe it’s time everyone got realistic on what can actually be achieved.
Click to expand...

Firstly you are playing with numbers. 40 million didn't vote to leave? So in 1975 30 million didn't vote to stay in, so why did we stay in?

The house doesn't HAVE to do anything. The legislation for leaving has been passed. According to article 50, we AUTOMATICALLY get kicked out on the 29th March. TM can get an extension to article 50. I don't want her to, but this is the most likely option (in my opinion) as I believe the EU will do anything to keep us in. Are the 27 likely to disagree on this? She could argue she is deferring it to put it back to the people.

We CAN cancel the implementation of Article 50. The court did say (I think) that this has to be done in good faith. This implies that you shouldn't cancel it then resubmit it. It also means that TM will be doing exactly the opposite of what the referendum requested, without any official public backing.
 
Lienking said:
Firstly you are playing with numbers. 40 million didn't vote to leave? So in 1975 30 million didn't vote to stay in, so why did we stay in?

The house doesn't HAVE to do anything. The legislation for leaving has been passed. According to article 50, we AUTOMATICALLY get kicked out on the 29th March. TM can get an extension to article 50. I don't want her to, but this is the most likely option (in my opinion) as I believe the EU will do anything to keep us in. Are the 27 likely to disagree on this? She could argue she is deferring it to put it back to the people.

We CAN cancel the implementation of Article 50. The court did say (I think) that this has to be done in good faith. This implies that you shouldn't cancel it then resubmit it. It also means that TM will be doing exactly the opposite of what the referendum requested, without any official public backing.
Click to expand...

Very easily fixed with a people's vote.

U can have as many brexits as u want as long as no fooking brexit is on the ballot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.