Brexit Negotiations

[pod]

6 hours ago, cambiebud said:

Online petition to revoke article 50 now at 2.75 million

Is that some of the voter who originally voted to remain wanting a second bit of the cherry. 

Strange there's no online petition to revoke the petition to revoke article 50. 

[saintnextlifetime]

3 hours ago, DougJamie said:

Looks like a referendum is as effective

I understand that but will still leave

[cambiebud]

But she is right.

17.4 million voted to Leave. That's considerably more than 2.75 million. Not even in the same league.

Am I being whooshed here? [emoji3]

 

Now up to 4.5 million. It is obvious the mood has shifted as shown by 200 Brextremists turning up to see Farage today and a million plus marching on Downing Street demanding another vote. Even this PM must know the game is nearly up

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, cambiebud said:

 

Now up to 4.5 million. It is obvious the mood has shifted as shown by 200 Brextremists turning up to see Farage today and a million plus marching on Downing Street demanding another vote. Even this PM must know the game is nearly up

It's not obvious at all that the mood has shifted.

4.5 million is a huge number but it's nowhere near 17.5 million.

Therre is no need for Brexiteers to march. Their side won.

This all feels like the Indyref battles where only a few turned up to support No with tens of thousands marching for Yes. That was apparently evidence of a Yes win. We all know how that turned out.

[cambiebud]

It's not obvious at all that the mood has shifted.
4.5 million is a huge number but it's nowhere near 17.5 million.
Therre is no need for Brexiteers to march. Their side won.
This all feels like the Indyref battles where only a few turned up to support No with tens of thousands marching for Yes. That was apparently evidence of a Yes win. We all know how that turned out.

The difference is that the Indyref was a straight choice of yes or no. This monstrosity was between remain and never land. Few, if any, who voted leave had the faintest inkling that it would end with May’s deal or no deal. So it is time to ask again, 3 years down the line, if people really want her deal, they should endorse it

[Russian Saint]

The difference is that the Indyref was a straight choice of yes or no. This monstrosity was between remain and never land. Few, if any, who voted leave had the faintest inkling that it would end with May’s deal or no deal. So it is time to ask again, 3 years down the line, if people really want her deal, they should endorse it

I believe part of the problem that those in charge of taking charge of BREXIT and out the EU are remainers. Nearly three years to get it sorted and no further forward, absolute joke. Another referendum could end up best of three, or the remain campaign gets their way.
In my opinion regardless of what way individuals voted the government should have carried out the will of the majority.

[stlucifer]

8 hours ago, Russian Saint said:

 

I believe part of the problem that those in charge of taking charge of BREXIT and out the EU are remainers. Nearly three years to get it sorted and no further forward, absolute joke. Another referendum could end up best of three, or the remain campaign gets their way.
In my opinion regardless of what way individuals voted the government should have carried out the will of the majority.

 

IF there is a second referendum and "remainers" get their way it will be because people who were ill informed about the pros and cons of leaving have had their eyes opened. I firmly believe there should never have been a simple yes/no vote on this very complex issue but, as there was, it's only fair to let those who genuinely thought leaving the EU would benefit the country and have now discovered that it is neither easy, nor logical to sever ties to an organisation to which we are so heavily entwined get another opportunity to revise their decision. If leavers are so confident the decision was correct they should have no fear of it being reversed.

For me the people who were elected to look after our interests should do just that. That would mean revoking article 50 WITHOUT a second vote. It's become so obvious that leaving would be detrimental, nay, catastrophic for our economy and the people who will suffer for the longest didn't get a vote on the matter anyway. Is it really fair for a 60 something to devastate the potential and freedom of movement of  youngsters who are only now able to have a voice? With the information now out in the public domain I think all those I mention have the right to have their views expressed in a ballot. 

[Bud the Baker]

4 hours ago, stlucifer said:

IF there is a second referendum and "remainers" get their way it will be because people who were ill informed about the pros and cons of leaving have had their eyes opened. I firmly believe there should never have been a simple yes/no vote on this very complex issue but, as there was, it's only fair to let those who genuinely thought leaving the EU would benefit the country and have now discovered that it is neither easy, nor logical to sever ties to an organisation to which we are so heavily entwined get another opportunity to revise their decision. If leavers are so confident the decision was correct they should have no fear of it being reversed.

For me the people who were elected to look after our interests should do just that. That would mean revoking article 50 WITHOUT a second vote. It's become so obvious that leaving would be detrimental, nay, catastrophic for our economy and the people who will suffer for the longest didn't get a vote on the matter anyway. Is it really fair for a 60 something to devastate the potential and freedom of movement of  youngsters who are only now able to have a voice? With the information now out in the public domain I think all those I mention have the right to have their views expressed in a ballot. 

Yup, I think at retirement age people should be able to choose between a free Bus Pass / TV Licence etc and the right to vote.

Come on OAPs - what would you sell your vote for?

Edited March 24, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[saintnextlifetime]

16 hours ago, cambiebud said:

 

The difference is that the Indyref was a straight choice of yes or no. This monstrosity was between remain and never land. Few, if any, who voted leave had the faintest inkling that it would end with May’s deal or no deal. So it is time to ask again, 3 years down the line, if people really want her deal, they should endorse it

 

One could easily describe the independence that was promised in 2014 as "never land". Even the most ardent Yes men admitted that the divorce would not have been easy.  .

This one is no more complex but has been getting sabotaged since the beginning.  .

[Bud the Baker]

5 hours ago, saintnextlifetime said:

One could easily describe the independence that was promised in 2014 as "never land". Even the most ardent Yes men admitted that the divorce would not have been easy.  .

This one is no more complex but has been getting sabotaged since the beginning.  .

Except that it was well costed by the SNP in a 600-odd page manifesto and as I've explained previously opposition to it ranged from the Project Fear predictions that Scotland would spin off the planet's face the day after the referendum, to the Chancellor exceeding his authority in saying that Scotland couldn't continue to use the £Sterling as it's currency, even Ruth Davidson has since admitted that the UKs economy is too Londoncentric now the Independence referendum is safely out of the way - I look forward to hearing her flip on that statement when IndyRef2 happens  ! No doubt there would have been issues to face after Independence but to refer to the Independence manifesto as "neverland" is a gross exaggeration.

I completely understand people preferring to stay in the Union for patriotic and family reasons, but the economic arguments for leaving are sound and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the most competent of the current leaders on offer. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[smcc]

8 hours ago, stlucifer said:

IF there is a second referendum and "remainers" get their way it will be because people who were ill informed about the pros and cons of leaving have had their eyes opened. I firmly believe there should never have been a simple yes/no vote on this very complex issue but, as there was, it's only fair to let those who genuinely thought leaving the EU would benefit the country and have now discovered that it is neither easy, nor logical to sever ties to an organisation to which we are so heavily entwined get another opportunity to revise their decision. If leavers are so confident the decision was correct they should have no fear of it being reversed.

For me the people who were elected to look after our interests should do just that. That would mean revoking article 50 WITHOUT a second vote. It's become so obvious that leaving would be detrimental, nay, catastrophic for our economy and the people who will suffer for the longest didn't get a vote on the matter anyway. Is it really fair for a 60 something to devastate the potential and freedom of movement of  youngsters who are only now able to have a voice? With the information now out in the public domain I think all those I mention have the right to have their views expressed in a ballot. 

 

3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Yup, I think at retirement age people should be able to choose between a free Bus Pass / TV Licence etc and the right to vote.

Come on OAPs - what would you sell your vote for?

As someone well past pension age who voted Remain in 2016 I would vote remain again and with much greater enthusiasm now that the full details of Brexit are available!

Edited March 24, 2019 by smcc

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, smcc said:

 

As someone well past pension age who voted Remain in 2006 I would vote remain again and with much greater enthusiasm now that the full details of Brexit are available!

Aye but you'll only need to suffer it for a few years. those at the other end of the spectrum will need to beg, steal or borrow to get back into the club. And they will want to re-join.

[saintnextlifetime]

9 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Except that it was well costed by the SNP in a 600-odd page manifesto and as I've explained previously opposition to it ranged from the Project Fear predictions that Scotland would spin off the planet's face the day after the referendum, to the Chancellor exceeding his authority in saying that Scotland couldn't continue to use the £Sterling as it's currency, even Ruth Davidson has since admitted that the UKs economy is too Londoncentric now the Independence referendum is safely out of the way - I look forward to hearing her flip on that statement when IndyRef2 happens  ! No doubt there would have been issues to face after Independence but to refer to the Independence manifesto as "neverland" is a gross exaggeration.

I completely understand people preferring to stay in the Union for patriotic and family reasons, but the economic arguments for leaving are sound and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the most competent of the current leaders on offer. 

Gross exaggeration is entirely your opinion,  Colin   . .

Just as it was entirely the opinion of the other poster that leaving Europe is "neverland". 

It has certainly been made to appear like that by Remainers in Parliament and a pro Europe media , doesn't for one minute mean it is the case 

[Bud the Baker]

11 hours ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Gross exaggeration is entirely your opinion,  Colin   . .

Just as it was entirely the opinion of the other poster that leaving Europe is "neverland". 

It has certainly been made to appear like that by Remainers in Parliament and a pro Europe media , doesn't for one minute mean it is the case 

The 650 page document Scotland's Future published prior to the independence referendum was a real & detailed document - calling it "neverland" is a gross exaggeration.

The contradictory statements of LEAVE statements during the campaign on issues like whether the UK would remain in the Customs Union are a matter of record as is the ultimate "neverland" statement by Liam Fox claiming that "the deal with the EU should be the easiest in history"! 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[beyond our ken]

22 hours ago, saintnextlifetime said:

One could easily describe the independence that was promised in 2014 as "never land". Even the most ardent Yes men admitted that the divorce would not have been easy.  .

This one is no more complex but has been getting sabotaged since the beginning.  .

without understanding what you did, you just completely undermined your own argument.  How can someone telling you that change is not going to be easy be seen as promising a never land.

 

Anyway, we all know what went on at neverland

[Bud the Baker]

MV3 tomorrow apparently...

Quote

12:17

May planning third meaningful vote on her Brexit deal tomorrow, ITV reports

*************************

Erm, apparently not...

Quote

Quote

13:21

Theresa May has spoken to Arlene Foster, the DUP leader. But the DUP has not lifted its opposition to the PM’s deal, the BBC reports.

 

Well, at least we know who's running the show! 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[melmac]

Aye, Laura Kuenssberg. Go LK.

 

 

[DougJamie]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

MV3 tomorrow apparently...

*************************

Erm, apparently not...

Well, at least we know who's running the show! 

That big land mass to the east is running the show, which is actually quite hilarious

[Bud the Baker]

4 minutes ago, melmac said:

Aye, Laura Kuenssberg. Go LK.

I think we need a fotie of Ms. K!

 

 

 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I think we need a fotie of Ms. K!

 

 

 

 

Naw we didnae...

[DougJamie]

2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I think we need a fotie of Ms. K!

   In her dreams ( and mine)

 

 

 

 

 

[saintnextlifetime]

On 3/24/2019 at 1:18 PM, Bud the Baker said:

Except that it was well costed by the SNP in a 600-odd page manifesto and as I've explained previously opposition to it ranged from the Project Fear predictions that Scotland would spin off the planet's face the day after the referendum, to the Chancellor exceeding his authority in saying that Scotland couldn't continue to use the £Sterling as it's currency, even Ruth Davidson has since admitted that the UKs economy is too Londoncentric now the Independence referendum is safely out of the way - I look forward to hearing her flip on that statement when IndyRef2 happens  ! No doubt there would have been issues to face after Independence but to refer to the Independence manifesto as "neverland" is a gross exaggeration.

I completely understand people preferring to stay in the Union for patriotic and family reasons, but the economic arguments for leaving are sound and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the most competent of the current leaders on offer. 

Again , that is what is true for you but is not necessarily true for me. 

Sturgeon being a competent leader is your opinion .

You mention a 600 page political book that never came to fruition  being "the future of Scotland ".  I regard the future of Scotland as it's young people and of those young people, a third of the children are on psychotropic drugs . What kind of future does that hold if those people grow up with a dependence on those drugs ? The leader you like has a responsibility for that.  .

[oaksoft]

27 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Again , that is what is true for you but is not necessarily true for me. 

Sturgeon being a competent leader is your opinion .

You mention a 600 page political book that never came to fruition  being "the future of Scotland ".  I regard the future of Scotland as it's young people and of those young people, a third of the children are on psychotropic drugs . What kind of future does that hold if those people grow up with a dependence on those drugs ? The leader you like has a responsibility for that.  .

A third of all children in Scotland are on psychotropic drugs?

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

While we're on the subject of Laura

[Bud the Baker]

11 hours ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Again , that is what is true for you but is not necessarily true for me. 

Sturgeon being a competent leader is your opinion .

You mention a 600 page political book that never came to fruition  being "the future of Scotland ".  I regard the future of Scotland as it's young people and of those young people, a third of the children are on psychotropic drugs . What kind of future does that hold if those people grow up with a dependence on those drugs ? The leader you like has a responsibility for that.  .

....well has NS brought the country to what is regularly described as a "state of emergency" - no that's down to TM & JC!

I mention Scotland's Future because it was a real document running to 650 pages outlining economic plans for an Independent Scotland not as you claimed "neverland" - and certainly not something that could be printed on the side of a bus (£350M a week for the NHS) and technically wasn't even correct. 

I have avoided the "big pharma" thread so far but is Scotland significantly worse than the UK as a whole - the only way I could see an argument against NS being more "competent" than TM & JC,  what I actually claimed, being valid.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Bud the Baker