back with a vengeance BREXIT - 31 January 2020

[Grafter]

24 minutes ago, Heero Yuy said:

There has literally not been a better opportunity for them to strike. 

Maybe not, but is this the best its gna get?

[Heero Yuy]

17 minutes ago, Grafter said:

Maybe not, but is this the best its gna get?

Fair point, but It’s a massive gamble.

As soon as May took that bill off the table Jeremy  should’ve struck. She won’t bring that back to parliament now until shes certain it will pass imo.

[Mr. Martinez]

1 hour ago, Badman said:

Why cant remain be a viable option?

If its what the people want then its what the people want.

Its not 2016 anymore 

I really disagree with this. We have to follow through with the referendum result. 

[Grafter]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Martinez said:

I really disagree with this. We have to follow through with the referendum result. 

Why must we when it was such a small margin? And many people are changing their minds already

[Afroman]

Ideally, remain is the best option. It's too late for a 2nd ref.

Best realistic option is to take Mays deal as bad as it is. No one likes the deal. That's something both sides have in common. No one feeling like they have won is the only way we can move forward from this mess. Everyone takes a L collectively.

[Mr. Martinez]

38 minutes ago, Grafter said:

Why must we when it was such a small margin? And many people are changing their minds already

It was one of the biggest turnouts for any election since the war. 

Leave won. 

We can't undo that. As much as I hate the result. We just can't undo it. 

[Grafter]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Martinez said:

It was one of the biggest turnouts for any election since the war. 

Leave won. 

We can't undo that. As much as I hate the result. We just can't undo it. 

I kno that

Don't feel you addressed what I said though

Just sounds like rhetoric repetition. 

[Drift]

Check the internal poll, Mr Martinez voted "Out"... We don't "have" to do anything, it was a non legally binding advisory referendum... It holds next to no power.

[Drift]

Additionally Leaves narrow victory was based on tremendous lying and illegal spending. Also a whole heap of Leave voters have died of natural causes since the referendum. Remain should very much be an option, nothing will happen. Leave voters don't have the minerals or fitness for civil unrest.

[cambridgebanteer]

@Grafter It's only the dictator's way in countries where the ruling government is above the law... in this country the law rules above legislators, therefore people who partake in violence against a democratic decision by the sovereign (in this country is parliament on behalf of the queen) is a seditionist. Autocrats may use the rule of law as a pretext for crushing legitimate dissent, however in coutnries where the law actually rules, the use of state violence against seditionists is not only legal but the responsibility of law enforcement agencies. 

When I say brutality I mean by strictly applying the letter of the law to seditionists with no allowance or special treatment just because they have nativist gripes and delusions (because rioters will  be from the same sectors of the populace as law enforcement officials who are tasked with quelling their riots and civil war overtures, i.e. their job will be to tear gas and arrest their own siblings and parents in this instance)... they should be dealt with in the same way as student riots, 2011 looting sprees or even just football hooligan madnesses. 

[Mr. Martinez]

1 hour ago, Drift said:

Check the internal poll, Mr Martinez voted "Out"... We don't "have" to do anything, it was a non legally binding advisory referendum... It holds next to no power.

I voted remain bro (In the actual referendum)

We might as well just do away with democracy in any shape or form if we're going to start saying elections won on the back of lies or 'small' margins don't count. 

It makes no sense. 

[Grafter]

If one party wins a general election by a small margin, this is reflected by the number of seats in the house and the subsequent consequences of that are borne out.

In this referendum, you are advocating that the desire of basically half the population is dismissed. 

Our democratic system is not based on referendums. Its based on elected representatives. And as someone has said, it was never legally bindin and may very well have been illegally influenced. 

@Mr. Martinez

[cambridgebanteer]

We are not governed by referenda in general but in this instance parliament outsourced its sovereignty to the public, therefore unless there is a new refererendum we must leave the EU even if it is in name only e.g. Norway Plus Plus arrangement, the only way constiutionally for this to be avoided is if there is a new referendum where the majority vote for remain. 

If Parliament unilaterally overrules the result of the 2016 referendum the legitimacy of parliament is called into question, anybody participating in violent civil unrest would indeed have a leg to stand on because parliament would have acted unconstitutionally. 

This is why we should have a new referendum, because  the likely outcome will be remain and anyone participating in violent action will be classed as seditionists and can be suppressed using force and this will be constitutionally justified. The whole point of a referendum is not ruling by consensus, the wish of the losing side is ignored wholesale. 

[Grafter]

Outsourced sovereignty?

Thats why parliament (our reps) had to vote to invoke article 50?

There's no legal basis to abide by the result.

And what do u have to say about the illegal overspending of the leave campaign? Nothing?

The referendum was a got damn sham. 

[cambridgebanteer]

2 minutes ago, Grafter said:

Outsourced sovereignty?

Thats why parliament (our reps) had to vote to invoke article 50?

There's no legal basis to abide by the result.

And what do u have to say about the illegal overspending of the leave campaign? Nothing?

The referendum was a got damn sham. 

Yes they had to vote to invoke article 50 as a formal parliamentary process, however constitutionally MPs were not able to vote against invoking article 50, and they didn't. 

[Seydou]

Three occasions Remain has lost.

2015, Tories won by promising a referendum

2016, Leave won

2017, May won because of her "strong, stable" Brexit.

At this point, there's no reason to go back. Just running around in circles.

[Grafter]

Lol

Cool

[Drift]

2 hours ago, Mr. Martinez said:

I voted remain bro (In the actual referendum)

We might as well just do away with democracy in any shape or form if we're going to start saying elections won on the back of lies or 'small' margins don't count. 

It makes no sense. 

The margins and lies are cosmetic. The main issue is that this is an advisory referendum, this is NOT a legally binding constitutional election.

1 hour ago, Seydou said:

Three occasions Remain has lost.

2015, Tories won by promising a referendum

2016, Leave won

2017, May won because of her "strong, stable" Brexit.

At this point, there's no reason to go back. Just running around in circles.

Tory election wins are based on the press telling the electorate that Labour are evil communists who will bankrupt the country. Especially in 2015 where a European referendum was an afterthought for most voters.

[Afroman]

Bottled it earlier. Seems to have found Sub bass button

[Heero Yuy]

 

Quote

 

Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour will table a motion of no confidence in Theresa May personally because she has delayed the vote on her Brexit deal. This is not the same as a proper motion of no confidence in the government and, unlike a proper motion of no confidence, the government does not have to allow time for it to be debated. Labour could hold a debate on the motion when it next gets allocated a day for an opposition debate, at some point in the new year, or it may never get put to a vote at all. (Labour sources have so far not clarified this point.) But the Labour party is arguing that, if the government does not allow time for a debate itself, that shows it is scared of losing and that May does not have the confidence of the Commons.

 

 

some hollow gesture.

[Simply D]

hahaha, did she storm out??

 

 

[Da Luv Doc]

Corbyn is a coward

[underwriter]

teresa

 

WHY YOU GO SO FASs??

[weneverwherever]

15 hours ago, Heero Yuy said:

Proof that it’s tory owned?

and if labour are so ahead why haven’t they triggered a no confidence vote ?

Yougov was started from a Tory supporter/voter. Jeremy Corbyn won't call a no confidence vote in the government till he has enough support mainly from dup till then  he's playing it smart by calling a vote of no confidence in Theresa May and will lose to show what turncoats the 117 who voted against in the vote of no confidence from her own party mps. 

[Heero Yuy]

10 hours ago, weneverwherever said:

Yougov was started from a Tory supporter/voter. Jeremy Corbyn won't call a no confidence vote in the government till he has enough support mainly from dup till then  he's playing it smart by calling a vote of no confidence in Theresa May and will lose to show what turncoats the 117 who voted against in the vote of no confidence from her own party mps. 

ok cool so no actual proof.

 

Quote

Nigel Dodds has said the DUP will not support Jeremy Corbyn's motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Theresa May, describing it as "parliamentary theatrics and game-playing".

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/dup-will-not-back-corbyns-move-to-oust-pm-dodds-37636072.html

 

Jacob Reiss Mogg came out yesterday and backed May, so to the public at least they're showing a united front. DUP have settled back in their corner again. And the government has brushed aside his no confidence motion.

....