Bit of Brexit info required. | Page 3 | Vital Football

Bit of Brexit info required.

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#41
to suggest that we should annul the vote is ludicrous. Would you be arguing the same for a £1 overspend?
So ludicrous there is an international convention about it. Yes it matters. It matters a hell of a lot. How much overspend before you would consider it bent? A million? Ten million?

The leaflet, with flaws, was a government duty. Not part of the Remain campaign. Just that the conclusions were obvious.
It was not illegal in any way. If you think it was, refer them to the commission.
What price front page coverage from the Express, Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Times, and so on everyday? Contribution in kind submitted from Rupert, the Barclay britgers, Lord Rothermere and all the other nondoms interfering in our politics? Pull the other one.

Democracy isn't quite dead but you're trying hard. Shutting down debate kills democracy. A vote cannot be undemocratic. Unless, of course, the voting public is misinformed and the vote is not free and fair. Your illegitimate win is hollow and will continue to crumble until it dies.
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#43
So ludicrous there is an international convention about it. Yes it matters. It matters a hell of a lot. How much overspend before you would consider it bent? A million? Ten million?

The leaflet, with flaws, was a government duty. Not part of the Remain campaign. Just that the conclusions were obvious.
It was not illegal in any way. If you think it was, refer them to the commission.
What price front page coverage from the Express, Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Times, and so on everyday? Contribution in kind submitted from Rupert, the Barclay britgers, Lord Rothermere and all the other nondoms interfering in our politics? Pull the other one.

Democracy isn't quite dead but you're trying hard. Shutting down debate kills democracy. A vote cannot be undemocratic. Unless, of course, the voting public is misinformed and the vote is not free and fair. Your illegitimate win is hollow and will continue to crumble until it dies.
That's one of the most bitter and sad posts I have read on this subject. I will throw name back at you. Soros. The debate is over. We are leaving. How we leave is another matter. And as I have said I'm quite happy with the government proposals as amended by the Brexiteers. Putting roadblocks up at every juncture is hardly debate. The voting public were also misinformed about the immediate aftermath of brexit.
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#44
Didn't realise u were carrying on ur nonsense here. It's called cake and eating it- unsurprisingly EU not likely to find that kind of deal very appetising.

I guess u don't play well with others
F off Radford. I have to read your utter shite all the time. This is an off topic thread on Brexit. If you want to have your say fine. ITTO and I are always at this and we went off topic not to bother the likes of football geniuses like you
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#45
That's one of the most bitter and sad posts I have read on this subject. I will throw name back at you. Soros. The debate is over. We are leaving. How we leave is another matter. And as I have said I'm quite happy with the government proposals as amended by the Brexiteers. Putting roadblocks up at every juncture is hardly debate. The voting public were also misinformed about the immediate aftermath of brexit.
Did Soros contribute in any way to the Remain campaign?

Illegally??
Again, feel free to provide any evidence you have? And be sure to refer any wrong doing to the police.

The 'lies on both sides' argument it pure trumpist false equivalence bullshit. "There were bad people on both sides, not just the neo nazis", "it might be Russia, or might be the Chinese, it might be anyone, or nobody". Throw enough mud and some might stick.
You're presumably trotting out the instant recession and punishment budget line again. Well recession was averted by immediate action by the Bank of England in the form of quantitative easing. The punishment budget had happened. What was the original time line for the end of austerity? Now pushed to infinity.

Since the vote was so close, and everything since has been shambolic, and every leaver has a different view of what Brexit means... can you really believe that TheWillOfThePeople is what we will get?

What is wrong with putting the negotiated BestDealForBritain back to the public to see if they really want that, or would prefer to stick with what we have and reform from within?


The truth is the debate is far from over. People are allowed to change their minds now that project fear is becoming reality. Maybe you need to deal with that.
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#46
Did Soros contribute in any way to the Remain campaign?

Illegally??
Again, feel free to provide any evidence you have? And be sure to refer any wrong doing to the police.

The 'lies on both sides' argument it pure trumpist false equivalence bullshit. "There were bad people on both sides, not just the neo nazis", "it might be Russia, or might be the Chinese, it might be anyone, or nobody". Throw enough mud and some might stick.
You're presumably trotting out the instant recession and punishment budget line again. Well recession was averted by immediate action by the Bank of England in the form of quantitative easing. The punishment budget had happened. What was the original time line for the end of austerity? Now pushed to infinity.

Since the vote was so close, and everything since has been shambolic, and every leaver has a different view of what Brexit means... can you really believe that TheWillOfThePeople is what we will get?

What is wrong with putting the negotiated BestDealForBritain back to the public to see if they really want that, or would prefer to stick with what we have and reform from within?


The truth is the debate is far from over. People are allowed to change their minds now that project fear is becoming reality. Maybe you need to deal with that.
Soros has been funding remain/pro Europe movements. His money is used to seek to reverse the referendum result.

It does amaze me how quickly and easily you are capable of brushing things under the carpet that don't suit you. It doesn't suit you for example that we didn't have an immediate recession. If the BOE assisted in this (quarter percent rate interest rate, pumping more money into the system) it's because we stayed out of the euro and we have a BOE to assist in times of stress. No doubt, they are making preparations for when we leave. Meanwhile employment rates are the highest they have ever been

Leavers don't have different views. This is a view trotted out by remainers desperate to deligitamise the result. They may express individual components differently (I.e immigration, money, laws) but it comes down to one central component sovereignty and nation state. Most leavers want a clean break. Personally I'm willing to compromise on that and take a pragmatic approach about how we leave..just as long as we do and we can control our border, money and laws and can do trade deals with third countries easily.

So having explained so vociferously about how people were lied to in the lead up (again I would say that many exaggerations about what would happen were said by both sides) you now want the deal brought back to the people to decide. This is not just about the deal though is it. Its about what the terms would be to revisit Article 50. Are the EU going to take us back on the same terms?What else could we have done? That complicates the issue.

The result may go one way or the other but it will be sufficiently close to throw the UK into a constitutional crisis of epic proportions and for what. To be tied to an inflexible institution with many problems of its own. An institution which has neutered nation states. An institution presiding over huge levels of youth unemployment. An institution willing to punish a group of people who just said no to their way of doing things.

Both main parties ran on a leave eu ticket. The conservative manifesto revolved around leaving the single market and customs union. We voted to leave. There in the round is sufficient democratic mandate. But what we have is a Labour party thirsty for power and a group of remainer Tory rebels seeking to undermine the result by watering it down so much its as if we haven't left. Meanwhile, the alleged hard right of the conservative party are criticised by people like Ummana for holding May hostage. What in fact they are doing is ensuring the vote and manifesto is respected. That is democracy.

I think you need to revisit exactly what you are defending here ITTO.
 
Last edited:

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#47
Soros has been funding remain/pro Europe movements. His money is used to seek to reverse the referendum result.
He is perfectly entitled to do that. That's democracy. Most (all?) has happened SINCE the referendum. There was no illegal activity. You trying to conflate the two is disingenuous. You are trying to equalise his funding of campaigns with the ILLEGAL spending of the official Leave campaign. It is indefensible.
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#48
Leavers don't have different views.
[...]
Most leavers want a clean break. Personally I'm willing to compromise on that and take a pragmatic approach about how we leave.
So... you do have different views? Clearly what is acceptable to JRM is unacceptable to more moderate leavers who don't want to destroy the economy and vice versa.

Some want immigration to end or be drastically reduced. It won't be, because the government is dependent on the cash and skills boost they bring. Even so, it could have been reduced greatly from both the EU and the RoW while remaining in the EU. The government chose not to enforce those rules.

Some want a nebulous concept of sovereignty. This won't happen either because every single deal involves pooling sovereignty and oversight by an independent body.


Unfortunately, the compromise agreement from Chequers that took two years to put together and two days to fall apart might possibly have worked but the amendments that you are trumpeting have made it unworkable, so it will fail.
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#49
BTW, it will fail for a number of reasons. The EU won't collect tax for us at all of their borders. The EU won't accept a deal with no backstop on Northern Ireland.
They have destroyed the prospect of the compromise deal, presumably in the hope of forcing a hard brexit which will be catastrophic for jobs, the economy and from that the welfare state, the NHS, the armed forces, fixing the potholes, and so on. Instead - because the idea of no deal is literally so preposterous that no goverment could accept it, even a crazy, railroaded one one like this - it increases the likelihood of no brexit at all.
So that's a silver lining at least, eh?
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#53
He is perfectly entitled to do that. That's democracy. Most (all?) has happened SINCE the referendum. There was no illegal activity. You trying to conflate the two is disingenuous. You are trying to equalise his funding of campaigns with the ILLEGAL spending of the official Leave campaign. It is indefensible.
Im not trying to conflate anything anything. Im merely pointing out that remain advocates spend a great deal of money seeking to influence outcomes

A breach of the rules is wrong and I hope the people who knew about it are judged accordingly and I have said that several times but lets not make this the last desperate attempt to over turn the will of the people...lets not suggest that the extra money spent turned the result which is precisely what you are trying to do
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#54
So... you do have different views? Clearly what is acceptable to JRM is unacceptable to more moderate leavers who don't want to destroy the economy and vice versa.

Some want immigration to end or be drastically reduced. It won't be, because the government is dependent on the cash and skills boost they bring. Even so, it could have been reduced greatly from both the EU and the RoW while remaining in the EU. The government chose not to enforce those rules.

Some want a nebulous concept of sovereignty. This won't happen either because every single deal involves pooling sovereignty and oversight by an independent body.


Unfortunately, the compromise agreement from Chequers that took two years to put together and two days to fall apart might possibly have worked but the amendments that you are trumpeting have made it unworkable, so it will fail.
Are we talking about how we leave or why we are leaving? The "debate" raised by the remainers is that leavers wanted to leave for different reasons. I say that's bogus. Immigration for example is one element of a wider issue-namely sovereignty and nation state. If you asked most people who cited immigration "if we had a skills gap in the UK or couldn't fill position amongst the national populace would you be ok for those people to come in from anywhere in the world?-they would mostly say yes. The more pertinent question is "Should it be up to us who comes into the UK?" That answer would be yes too

What you are talking about is how we leave? There may be some differences here -some will be more aggressive than others but the core basis of how we should leave is as set out in the speeches Theresa May made since the referendum, the principles espoused in the manifesto and the principles laid out in the leaflet which was circulated nationally.
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#55
Yes, they would do that, and they have repeatedly said they would. Furthermore, as Lord Kerr (who wrote it) has said many times, we can just revoke our Article 50 notification.
Please refer me to the statement from the EU which says that we can reverse the decision and we would still have our rebates.
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#56
There is no punishment.
They are just maintaining the existing rules of the club. Your idea of "punishing" is not rolling over and pushing the boat out for us.
Nonsense. They have agreed a trade deal with Canada recently. You would have thought that 45 years of contribution and £40 billion they have no legal right to might count for something and would mean we could have a reasonable end position. So it is a punishment not to act with us in a reasonable fashion.

We have made them a good offer. If they want to deal with a brexiteer instead they should keep going the way they are because I can assure you they will risk kissing goodbye to the £40billion.
 

toms

Vital Football Hero
#57
BTW, it will fail for a number of reasons. The EU won't collect tax for us at all of their borders. The EU won't accept a deal with no backstop on Northern Ireland.
They have destroyed the prospect of the compromise deal, presumably in the hope of forcing a hard brexit which will be catastrophic for jobs, the economy and from that the welfare state, the NHS, the armed forces, fixing the potholes, and so on. Instead - because the idea of no deal is literally so preposterous that no goverment could accept it, even a crazy, railroaded one one like this - it increases the likelihood of no brexit at all.
So that's a silver lining at least, eh?
No deal =WTO rules. No deal is better than a bad deal. They get no money from us. In the meantime, we prepare for a no deal and mitigate some of the risks you have mentioned

The rest of it is Project Fear Mark 2
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#58
Im not trying to conflate anything anything. Im merely pointing out that remain advocates spend a great deal of money seeking to influence outcomes

A breach of the rules is wrong and I hope the people who knew about it are judged accordingly and I have said that several times but lets not make this the last desperate attempt to over turn the will of the people...lets not suggest that the extra money spent turned the result which is precisely what you are trying to do
How do you kow it didn't?
Why did they spend it if they didn't think it might make the difference. This is exactly why the rules are there. The result was a knife edge and one side broke the laws of campaigning. You are bringing Soros into it precisely to muddy the waters and hint at equivalence. Otherwise why did you do it? I gave you a list of people who were on a committee that oversaw lawbreaking and you replied with "yeah, but Soros". It's pathetic.
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#59
Please refer me to the statement from the EU which says that we can reverse the decision and we would still have our rebates.
No, look it up yourself. There have been speeches throughout about us being welcomed back with open arms if we reverse or cancel the decision.
 

in_the_top_one

Vital Football Hero
#60
Are we talking about how we leave or why we are leaving? The "debate" raised by the remainers is that leavers wanted to leave for different reasons. I say that's bogus. Immigration for example is one element of a wider issue-namely sovereignty and nation state. If you asked most people who cited immigration "if we had a skills gap in the UK or couldn't fill position amongst the national populace would you be ok for those people to come in from anywhere in the world?-they would mostly say yes. The more pertinent question is "Should it be up to us who comes into the UK?" That answer would be yes too

What you are talking about is how we leave? There may be some differences here -some will be more aggressive than others but the core basis of how we should leave is as set out in the speeches Theresa May made since the referendum, the principles espoused in the manifesto and the principles laid out in the leaflet which was circulated nationally.
Except the speeches are empty waffle about taking back control with no workable, acceptable solutions offered. How do we maintain the good friday agreement without a customs union? How do we avoid queues at the borders and turning Kent into a lorry park? How do we maintain the just in time deliveries? How do we move radioisotopes without the ECJ being involved? How do we enage with ANY of the european agencies without the ECJ being involved?

Instead, we remainers are told that we aren't imaginative enough. Well it isn't up to us. DD and an entire department, and his Leave colleagues have had two years to come up with something but they have spectacularly blown it. They've had their chance and come up with nowt.