Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

[salmonbuddie]

Correct! 

The SNP MPs at Westminster have stopped England and Wales from leaving!
You’re pretty dumb! [emoji38]

#thichasfcuk turns up late to the party again. Thankfully the schools are back next week.

[antrin]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Workers rights and environmental policies will now be crafted in the UK although will almost certainly be aligned with those of the EU for trade reasons. Nobody on the Leave side is talking about removing or reducing any of these rights so I'm not with you on that.

a sizeable, suppurating section of the Conservative and Unionist party has always wanted to escape from what we might deem to be reasonable rules for farming, health and safety and employment rights.  This has possibly been the main driver in their party's crazy pursuit of a golden age when engerland/neverneverland stood alone and flourished.

It would be naïve in the extreme to believe that there wouldn't be strenuous attempts to sever all connections with EU workers rights and environmental policies.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the current PM is a known liar: as a schoolboy,  journalist, MP, husband and -  in his actions since his beatification by so few members of his own self-serving party -  we've seen a strong performance as a Prime Minister who is a congenital liar.

How can any sentient life form EVER believe or trust in anything he says?

Edited October 20, 2019 by antrin

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I'm glad you're sanguine about Worker's Rights & Environmental policies in the case of a Tory government lead by BJ with members of Britannia Unchained in senior Cabinet positions. I'm not.

 

Now now. Play nice. Don't put words in my mouth. You're not talking to an idiot. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Now now. Play nice. Don't put words in my mouth. You're not talking to an idiot. [emoji3]

Open goal...

[Seaside Nipper]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 4:03 PM, Bud the Baker said:

The we have this Gove chancer, what a Class A wanker

A Drunk and Disorderly Brexit In the Dark.url

[Bud the Baker]

17 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Now now. Play nice. Don't put words in my mouth. You're not talking to an idiot. 

You said….

Quote

Nobody on the Leave side is talking about removing or reducing any of these rights so I'm not with you on that.

As I then pointed out the PM has advocated removing these rights in a speech, the Foreign Secretary also as part of the Britannia Unchained manifesto, the Home Secretay Priti Patel was a co-author of BU and went further last year when she suggested the UK use the threat of food shortages to pressure the RoI in Brexit negotiations.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

You said….

As I then pointed out the PM has advocated removing these rights in a speech, the Foreign Secretary also as part of the Britannia Unchained manifesto, the Home Secretay Priti Patel was a co-author of BU and went further last year when she suggested the UK use the threat of food shortages to pressure the RoI in Brexit negotiations.

Stop deflecting.

You wrongly accused me of being sanguine about workers rights being eroded.

Cut it out. It's completely unnecessary.

Edited October 21, 2019 by oaksoft

[Bud the Baker]

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Bud the Baker]

As predicted Bercrow - he say no!

Quote

Bercow refuses to allow 'meaningful vote' on Brexit deal today

“My ruling is that the motion will not be debated today as it would be repetitive and disorderly to do so,” he told MPs.

It was an amendment to the Bill that was defeated on Saturday, BJs letter has gone to the EU and various Conservative MPs had indicated their intention to vote for the Bill today - I would've considered the circumstances to be different.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[insaintee]

On 10/19/2019 at 9:21 AM, oaksoft said:

The point is that we didn't vote as 4 separate countries so your logical argument is completely invalid.

We voted as the UK. That's not semantics or a matter of opinion. It is a matter of solid fact. We are not yet an independent country.

It is certainly interesting that the voters in Scotland were resoundingly pro-Remain but in the context of a UK vote it is meaningless to make the argument you are making.

The point is we didn't vote as four separate countries; we are four separate countries, So in effect we did vote as four separate countries.

 

The separateness of N Ireland is recognized in the deal; why not recognize Scotland separateness 

[stlucifer]

On 10/19/2019 at 9:21 AM, oaksoft said:

The point is that we didn't vote as 4 separate countries so your logical argument is completely invalid.

We voted as the UK. That's not semantics or a matter of opinion. It is a matter of solid fact. We are not yet an independent country.

It is certainly interesting that the voters in Scotland were resoundingly pro-Remain but in the context of a UK vote it is meaningless to make the argument you are making.

This is irrelevant in the sense that we did not get a choice on voting as a nation. The UK parties are constantly inferring that we are equal partners in their union so, if that were true, we SHOULD HAVE been allowed to vote as a nation. So the referendum ended all square. Status quo should have been the outcome.

[stlucifer]

6 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

As predicted Bercrow - he say no!

It was an amendment to the Bill that was defeated on Saturday, BJs letter has gone to the EU and various Conservative MPs had indicated their intention to vote for the Bill today - I would've considered the circumstances to be different.

 

Parliament decreed that the Brexit bill details had to be declared and debated before the DEAL, (not bill), could be voted on. This is effectively the repeat of the debate and vote.

ETA. The DEAL was a general overview of what the EU and BoJo's cronies had agreed. The bill is a far more involved document.

Edited October 21, 2019 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

13 hours ago, insaintee said:

The point is we didn't vote as four separate countries; we are four separate countries, So in effect we did vote as four separate countries.

 

If this helps you sleep at night......

[oaksoft]

10 hours ago, stlucifer said:

This is irrelevant in the sense that we did not get a choice on voting as a nation. The UK parties are constantly inferring that we are equal partners in their union so, if that were true, we SHOULD HAVE been allowed to vote as a nation. So the referendum ended all square. Status quo should have been the outcome.

It's entirely relevant.

If Scots had wanted to make our own decision regarding EU membership as a  separate country we would have voted for Independence in 2014. We didn't and therefore accepted that our voice would be a UK voice come the EU referendum.

 

 

[Cornwall_Saint]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's entirely relevant.

If Scots had wanted to make our own decision regarding EU membership as a  separate country we would have voted for Independence in 2014. We didn't and therefore accepted that our voice would be a UK voice come the EU referendum.

 

 

That’s not the case though.

In 2014 there was no EU referendum on the cards - simply the promise that “Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU.” The EU referendum debate only came when Cameron shat himself from losing voters to UKIP in 2015. By then we had already voted No and expected the promise about staying in the EU to hold.

Some Scots made their EU decision in 2014 due to being told leaving the UK meant being out of the EU. There was no plans for an overall EU referendum at that point and that’s where the relevance is.

[oaksoft]

16 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

That’s not the case though.

In 2014 there was no EU referendum on the cards - simply the promise that “Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU.” The EU referendum debate only came when Cameron shat himself from losing voters to UKIP in 2015. By then we had already voted No and expected the promise about staying in the EU to hold.

Some Scots made their EU decision in 2014 due to being told leaving the UK meant being out of the EU. There was no plans for an overall EU referendum at that point and that’s where the relevance is.

I cant recall the exact date when the EU referendum was called but we knew it would be 2016 well before the 2014 Indyref. 

I think it was announced in 2012 or 2013 but it might have been earlier.

One of the arguments against that argument about being out of the EU was that we might vote Leav in 2016 and be out as part of the UK wothdrawal anyway.

You've got your dates wrong CS.

Edited October 22, 2019 by oaksoft

[Cornwall_Saint]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I cant recall the exact date when the EU referendum was called but we knew it would be 2016 well before the 2014 Indyref.

I think it was announced in 2012 or 2013 but it might have been earlier.

I’m pretty sure it was an election promise Cameron made in 2015 to stave off the increasing threat of UKIP. 
 

I’ve just checked it up and it appears we are both right in a sense. There’s an article here dating back to 2013 where Cameron made the promise during PMQs on the basis they won the 2015 election. This referendum was dependent on winning the 2015 election though - had, say Labour come out on top, the referendum would never have been held as Miliband outright said he was against it.

You are right in the sense Cameron mentioned it in 2013, but the actual “sorting it out” was dependent on the 2015 election, which was after the Scottish referendum. So, I would say I’m not wrong in saying that in 2014, there was no immediate plan for an EU referendum.

[oaksoft]

45 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I’m pretty sure it was an election promise Cameron made in 2015 to stave off the increasing threat of UKIP. 
 

I’ve just checked it up and it appears we are both right in a sense. There’s an article here dating back to 2013 where Cameron made the promise during PMQs on the basis they won the 2015 election. This referendum was dependent on winning the 2015 election though - had, say Labour come out on top, the referendum would never have been held as Miliband outright said he was against it.

You are right in the sense Cameron mentioned it in 2013, but the actual “sorting it out” was dependent on the 2015 election, which was after the Scottish referendum. So, I would say I’m not wrong in saying that in 2014, there was no immediate plan for an EU referendum.

Yeah you are right about the requirement for a 2015 GE win but in fairness not a single person truly believed Labour were going to win that election. They were miles behind in the polls and despite drastically outperforming in the 2015 election were still absolutely miles away from winning in the end. It was a real shock that they denied the Tories a clear win. Interestingly, we'd have probably been out of the EU by now if the Tories had taken another few seats and got their increased majority. I don't remember any arguments about how an EU referendum would be avoided if Labour got in. It was being talked about as an inevitable Remain win (I remember being annoyed at that complacency) but that was it.

It was crystal clear to everyone that the Tories would win in 2015, that there would then be an EU referendum in 2016 and that there was a risk of Leave winning. People voted in 2014 with that risk in mind.

So I accept you have a small point here but there's a fair bit of straw clutching going on. 

[Cornwall_Saint]

50 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah you are right about the requirement for a 2015 GE win but in fairness not a single person truly believed Labour were going to win that election. They were miles behind in the polls and despite drastically outperforming in the 2015 election were still absolutely miles away from winning in the end. It was a real shock that they denied the Tories a clear win. Interestingly, we'd have probably been out of the EU by now if the Tories had taken another few seats and got their increased majority. I don't remember any arguments about how an EU referendum would be avoided if Labour got in. It was being talked about as an inevitable Remain win (I remember being annoyed at that complacency) but that was it.

It was crystal clear to everyone that the Tories would win in 2015, that there would then be an EU referendum in 2016 and that there was a risk of Leave winning. People voted in 2014 with that risk in mind.

So I accept you have a small point here but there's a fair bit of straw clutching going on. 

The Tories may have been expected to take the most seats but the majority perhaps wasn’t to be expected, meaning that a coalition partner would still have had to agree on the EU referendum proposal. I wouldn’t quite say it was clear as day that a EU referendum would be held soon after 2014. Either way, the Scots were still promised that the only way of guaranteeing EU membership was to stay in the UK, which has proven to be bollocks now.

It’s my belief that the main reason the Tories won a majority was down to the EU referendum promise by Cameron - otherwise UKIP would have picked up further votes, either taking seats themselves or splitting the vote enough to get others in ahead of the Tories. It was mentioned in 2013 but was more in the public eye during the 2015 campaign (as is all manifesto policies).

That being said, there was also the “comfort” of many thinking Leave would never win the referendum anyway, meaning that some of them weren’t worried about this vote happening because they believed Remain would always come out on top. Of course they’ve been proven wrong now, but at the time it was a mere promise thinking it would end the issue and debate about EU membership - a massive reason Cameron bolted for it when Leave won, as he realised he had f**ked up massively.

[Cornwall_Saint]

57 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I don't recall hearing anything about an EU referendum before the 2014 IndyRef. I think if an EU referendum had been a definite (or near definite) then it would have been brought up by the Yes side as a counter argument against the "only way to stay in the EU is to vote No" claim.

I have to agree with this. While I posted above about an article from 2013 with the original mention of an EU referendum, it wasn’t really at the forefront of anything until the 2015 election campaign (the point I was trying to make), and indeed as you say, would have been the obvious counter to “Stay in UK to stay in EU.” It was not mentioned on a wide scale prior to Indyref.

[Wendy Saintss]

The £ millionaire banker, Ian Blackford, today said that the SNP would vote against the “disruptive” Brexit bill.

With one word he destroys the very reason for his own party’s existence.

What an idiot! 😂

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I don't recall hearing anything about an EU referendum before the 2014 IndyRef. I think if an EU referendum had been a definite (or near definite) then it would have been brought up by the Yes side as a counter argument against the "only way to stay in the EU is to vote No" claim.

It was brought up as a counter argument.

My memory is failing me as well so I dug up a link to Cameron's announcement of a referendum which he made in January 2013.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/brexit/david-cameron-bloomberg-speech-full-brexit-eu-referendum-date-six-years-149156

Edited October 22, 2019 by oaksoft

[Wendy Saintss]

A poll commissioned by Angus Robertson to highlighted the growth in support for independence has found that support is actually falling!

Ian Blackford and Angus Robertson

Dumb and dumber! 😂

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I never said that my memory is failing me, I was pointing out that if it was as set in stone as suggested then it would have been the obvious counter argument as it would have made the "guarantee EU membership" claim look rather silly and no other counter argument would have been required. That I would remember. 

 

 

It wasn't "set in stone" until the run up to the 2015 GE, when the Tories promised one. What Cameron said in some speech in 2013 isn't really relative, as I'm sure he said lots of things in speeches that didn't happen (he is a politician, after all).

 

 

 

I'm not sure I have much more to add to the discussion on this.

Like I said to others, if you want to clutch at that straw then feel free to do so. It seems that Yes voters are trying to rewrite history and I don't see what you gain from it.

I'm not accusing you of any of the following but I think more would be gained by Yes voters quitting the whining, the moral high ground grabbing and the constant nonsense about No voters being cowards, idiots, traitors to Scotland, bigots and cunts in general. There's way too much of it going on and it's counter-productive. Whinging about "lies" over currency, hard borders, the EU, pensions etc are the arguments of 2014. Yes voters would be better off trying to figure out how to better defend themselves against these sorts of things next time.

The fact that the polls haven't budged decisively in favour of Yes is proof that none of these whines are having an effect - it just makes Yessers look like sore losers who can't accept the result or respect that more than half of voters disagreed with their vision for Scotland. It's grievance, chip on shoulder politics and most people just don't have the time for it. The impact of that is actually likely to be a hardening of opposition to IndyRef2 at a time where Yes needs converts more than ever. This is so obvious that it beggars belief that it needs pointing out.

Anyway, that's me said my piece.

Edited October 23, 2019 by oaksoft

[Doakes]

I think the biggest takeaway from this (and the Scottish indyref) is that referendums are overly divisive. Horrible way to run things. Surely there's a better way to run our society than bickering over shite like this