The Mad Hatter's Tea Party

Phil47uk

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
51,267
Reaction score
198,861
Apologies to our overseas friends for once again dragging up the dreaded Brexit debate but as it's such a red hot chestnut over here at present I suppose it's only inevitable amongst us Brits.
However, if you really want an unbiased opinion on the subject from an expert without the usual name calling , accusations from either side and biased nonsense one tends to find when trying so dig up some information on the subject then you might want to watch this as it gives you a much clearer insight as to what's really behind it all.

 
Last edited:

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
19,143
Fascinating to watch as John Vasco takes a series of factual statements about Brexit and denies their validity.

If a non-binding advisory referendum that did not specify no-deal as an option is now being used as the justification for a no-deal then the entire Brexit project has mutated. In an anti-democratic fashion: that for which there was no mandate is now being forced on the nation against the clearly stated Parliamentary majority.

It doesn't matter how many words you use to try and obscure the fact that you didn't address the problem, you still didn't address the problem.
 

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
19,143
you might want to watch this as it gives you a much clearer insight as to what's really behind it all.
That will only emerge when the source of the £8.2 million is established. We know it wasn't Banks because he didn't have it and lied about where it was supposed to have come from and got exposed in that lie. We know it wasn't legal because Banks hid the source using an offshore shell (probably a chain of them terminating in Rock Services). No legit donation needs to be obscured like that.

So we know, in effect, that the entire Brexit project was illegally funded. What we don't know is why the result wasn't declared invalid, as it should have been, as soon as this emerged. We also don't know why our nationalist, nativist Brexit chums aren't more angry about the way their supposedly revered British democracy was bought and sold by... something else.
 

Phil47uk

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
51,267
Reaction score
198,861
Dom, Dom.. :facepalm:

Take it easy or you'll blow a head gasket at this rate...it's not at all good for you my dear fellow....:laugh2:

I think out of respect for our friends abroad we need to calm down a little with the whole who said this and who did that Brexit exchanges.
It's probably as about as interesting to them as an NRA Christmas convention lunch is to us.

You , as the professor in the video stated have one set of beliefs and ideals whilst others like Vasco, Gooner and myself simply have another.
No right, no wrong and each equally justifiable as the other but to move forward as a country we really don't need all this obsessive hysteria which is now bordering on fanaticism every time you switch on the news.
Let's hope we can get this whole Brexit mess done and dusted just as soon as possible.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens but in the meantime as my old man would say...Enjoy the music and "Never make your move too soon"..:laugh2:

Let us dance...( In F if anyone wants to jam along .)

 
Last edited:

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
19,143
You , as the professor in the video stated have one set of beliefs and ideals whilst others like Vasco, Gooner and myself simply have another.
Sir John's analysis is a bit of a damp squib, as he eventually admits at (7:46) when he says that 70% of Conservatives are leave-voting social conservatives (wow, shock) and 70% of Labour supporters are remain-voting social liberals (he mis-speaks about Conservatives and corrects himself a couple of sentences later).

None of which raises any eyebrows or addresses the fact that Leave was almost certainly illegally funded.

I suspect that our non-UK friends are equally baffled by the way the supposedly patriotic, Parliamentary-championing leavers amongst us simply wave this away, especially now we can see how carnivorously undemocratic Brexit is actually going to be.

No matter how hard you try to dodge this, you can't.
 

Gooner

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
5,466
Reaction score
25,226
Dom, Dom.. :facepalm:

Take it easy or you'll blow a head gasket at this rate...it's not at all good for you my dear fellow....:laugh2:

I think out of respect for our friends abroad we need to calm down a little with the whole who said this and who did that Brexit exchanges.
It's probably as about as interesting to them as an NRA Christmas convention lunch is to us.

You , as the professor in the video stated have one set of beliefs and ideals whilst others like Vasco, Gooner and myself simply have another.
No right, no wrong and each equally justifiable as the other but to move forward as a country we really don't need all this obsessive hysteria which is now bordering on fanaticism every time you switch on the news.
Let's hope we can get this whole Brexit mess done and dusted just as soon as possible.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens but in the meantime as my old man would say...Enjoy the music and "Never make your move too soon"..:laugh2:

Let us dance...( In F if anyone wants to jam along .)
As Phil mentions, I am a Eurosceptic since the Mastrict treaty, when the EU blatantly set its course towards federalisation. I will post one time on Brexit, I am reluctant to do so and will not debate this matter because I believe more than enough has been said already.


Non binding referendum? Mandate for no deal?

PM Cameron Bloomberg speech 2013

"The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for the Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice: to stay in the European Union on these new terms, or to come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election, and if a Conservative Government is elected, we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. We will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.
It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.
I say to the British people: this will be your decision.
And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country’s destiny."

Guess who won the 2015 election? Yes, you've guessed it, David Cameron's Conservative party.


PM Cameron's first speech after the referendum

"We should be proud of our parliamentary democracy. But it is right that when we consider questions of this magnitude, we don’t just leave it to politicians but rather listen directly to the people. And that is why Members from across this House voted for a referendum by a margin of almost 6 to 1.

Mr Speaker, the British people have voted to leave the European Union. It was not the result I wanted – nor the outcome that I believed is best for the country I love. But there can be no doubt about the result."

In the General election 2017 80% of the vote went to parties who stated in their manifestos that they would honour the referendum result.

The vote in Parliament to Invoke article 50, which set in motion a 2 year period, in order to make arrangements for a country to leave the EU was conducted, 480 voted for and 114 voted against. At the end of this period you leave with or without a 'deal'.

So Parliament has involved the voters in the mandate to hold a referendum, stated that they would uphold the result and finally, in several votes, ratified the result.
No one is falsely pushing for a no deal mandate, it is the default option of invoking Article 50 which was voted for by a massive majority of 366 where a majority of 1 is enough.

Foul play?

The electoral commission has fined both sides of the referendum campaign, the leave side considerably more, however as Phil and John have mentioned, the Government of the day campaigned to Remain and had an almost limitless budget to promote this view (9.3million on leaflets alone, I couldn't estimate the value of the publicity on tv and other media, especially when the entire vote leave budget allowance was 7 million!) which has never been challenged. In December last year the High Court threw out a bid to "void the result due to alleged cheating by the leave side" stating the case was "without merit".

Sham?

The sham has been the May governments' inept negotiations with the EU, the pathetic political posturing of the main players and the attempt from many quarters at subverting the Referendum result. The way for democracy to work is for the losers to accept the result, without which we have anarchy. Quite frankly I am both disgusted and embarrassed by these people who purport to support democracy, but only on their terms.


I spoke with a friend (voted to remain with conviction) at work today and he stated that the vote was held, leave won, we need to go as quickly as possible.

.......so that is me done.
 
Last edited:

John Vasco

I'm with the band
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
22,597
1) Fascinating to watch as John Vasco takes a series of factual statements about Brexit and denies their validity.

2) If a non-binding advisory referendum that did not specify no-deal as an option is now being used as the justification for a no-deal then the entire Brexit project has mutated. In an anti-democratic fashion: that for which there was no mandate is now being forced on the nation against the clearly stated Parliamentary majority.

3) It doesn't matter how many words you use to try and obscure the fact that you didn't address the problem, you still didn't address the problem.
Nothing substantial in the above reply, only the old worn-out remainer cliches.

1) Itemise them for me. One by one.

2) The same Referendum that had remain won, you would have had no quibble with at all. Disingenuous you, once again. 'Mutated' - another remain spiel off their 'crying by numbers' sheet! The mandate was not complicated at all. Go revisit the Referendum ballot paper. In so many words, stay in the EU or leave. It was not, and never was, for the ordinary people of the UK to come up with the overall total strategy of leaveing. That was for the politicians. But what do you expect when the PM had no plan whatsoever for a leave vote, and the PM and Chancellor baled out of their posts in a matter of several weeks. Prime outhouses, the two of them.

3) You are the one with the problem. You will not accept the democratic vote of a Referendum, a Referendum (I perhaps need to remind you) that was voted through by Parliament.

Now come back at me when you have something sensible to post refuting all or anything I said in my previous post. You haven't done that, just trotted out all the old garbage that has been spouted for over 3 years now.

To non-UK readers: Remainers, because they lost, go on at those who voted leave to 'address the problem(s)'. Total obfuscatrion, because they came second in a two-horse race. Nothing more...
 

Phil47uk

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
51,267
Reaction score
198,861
As Phil mentions, I am a Eurosceptic since the Mastrict treaty, when the EU blatantly set its course towards federalisation. I will post one time on Brexit, I am reluctant to do so and will not debate this matter because I believe more than enough has been said already.


Non binding referendum? Mandate for no deal?

PM Cameron Bloomberg speech 2013

"The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for the Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice: to stay in the European Union on these new terms, or to come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election, and if a Conservative Government is elected, we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. We will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.
It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.
I say to the British people: this will be your decision.
And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country’s destiny."

Guess who won the 2015 election? Yes, you've guessed it, David Cameron's Conservative party.


PM Cameron's first speech after the referendum

"We should be proud of our parliamentary democracy. But it is right that when we consider questions of this magnitude, we don’t just leave it to politicians but rather listen directly to the people. And that is why Members from across this House voted for a referendum by a margin of almost 6 to 1.

Mr Speaker, the British people have voted to leave the European Union. It was not the result I wanted – nor the outcome that I believed is best for the country I love. But there can be no doubt about the result."

In the General election 2017 80% of the vote went to parties who stated in their manifestos that they would honour the referendum result.

The vote in Parliament to Invoke article 50, which set in motion a 2 year period, in order to make arrangements for a country to leave the EU was conducted, 480 voted for and 114 voted against. At the end of this period you leave with or without a 'deal'.

So Parliament has involved the voters in the mandate to hold a referendum, stated that they would uphold the result and finally, in several votes, ratified the result.
No one is falsely pushing for a no deal mandate, it is the default option of invoking Article 50 which was voted for by a massive majority of 366 where a majority of 1 is enough.

Foul play?

The electoral commission has fined both sides of the referendum campaign, the leave side considerably more, however as Phil and John have mentioned, the Government of the day campaigned to Remain and had an almost limitless budget to promote this view (9.3million on leaflets alone, I couldn't estimate the value of the publicity on tv and other media) which has never been challenged. In December last year the High Court threw out a bid to "void the result due to alleged cheating by the leave side" stating the case was "without merit".

Sham?

The sham has been the May governments' inept negotiations with the EU, the pathetic political posturing of the main players and the attempt from many quarters at subverting the Referendum result. The way for democracy to work is for the losers to accept the result, without which we have anarchy. Quite frankly I am both disgusted and embarrassed by these people who purport to support democracy, but only on their terms.


I spoke with a friend (voted to remain with conviction) at work today and he stated that the vote was held, leave won, we need to go as quickly as possible.

.......so that is me done.
:applause: .....:applause:.....:applause:
 

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
19,143
The non-binding advisory referendum was not a mandate for no deal. Doesn't matter how much obfuscatory waffle you indulge in, it wasn't. Nobody wanted or expected a no deal. Brexiteers loudly and incessantly claimed that a deal would be the easiest in history and we would benefit thereby. None of which was true.

If they knew then we would end up with no deal, they lied to the British electorate. If they understood that the referendum was not a mandate for no deal, then they have now changed their position 180 degrees from its original stance.

The way for democracy to work is for the losers to accept the result, without which we have anarchy.
I want to know who or what paid for it because every indication is that it was illegal funding.

Crapping on about the government leaflet is disingenuous - it was legal spending as it was sent before the purdah period began on 25 May 2016 so enough of that old leaver talking point, please. It's just yet another doge and distraction.
 

Phil47uk

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
51,267
Reaction score
198,861
Nothing substantial in the above reply, only the old worn-out remainer cliches.

1) Itemise them for me. One by one.

2) The same Referendum that had remain won, you would have had no quibble with at all. Disingenuous you, once again. 'Mutated' - another remain spiel off their 'crying by numbers' sheet! The mandate was not complicated at all. Go revisit the Referendum ballot paper. In so many words, stay in the EU or leave. It was not, and never was, for the ordinary people of the UK to come up with the overall total strategy of leaveing. That was for the politicians. But what do you expect when the PM had no plan whatsoever for a leave vote, and the PM and Chancellor baled out of their posts in a matter of several weeks. Prime outhouses, the two of them.

3) You are the one with the problem. You will not accept the democratic vote of a Referendum, a Referendum (I perhaps need to remind you) that was voted through by Parliament.

Now come back at me when you have something sensible to post refuting all or anything I said in my previous post. You haven't done that, just trotted out all the old garbage that has been spouted for over 3 years now.

To non-UK readers: Remainers, because they lost, go on at those who voted leave to 'address the problem(s)'. Total obfuscatrion, because they came second in a two-horse race. Nothing more...
:applause:....:applause:....:applause:
 

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
19,143
Now come back at me when you have something sensible to post refuting all or anything I said in my previous post. You haven't done that, just trotted out all the old garbage that has been spouted for over 3 years now.
No, that's what you did while ignoring everything I actually said. So this conversation will not proceed smoothly since only one of us gives a shit about the facts.
 

Gooner

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
5,466
Reaction score
25,226
The non-binding advisory referendum was not a mandate for no deal. Doesn't matter how much obfuscatory waffle you indulge in, it wasn't. Nobody wanted or expected a no deal. Brexiteers loudly and incessantly claimed that a deal would be the easiest in history and we would benefit thereby. None of which was true.

If they knew then we would end up with no deal, they lied to the British electorate. If they understood that the referendum was not a mandate for no deal, then they have now changed their position 180 degrees from its original stance.



I want to know who or what paid for it because every indication is that it was illegal funding.

Crapping on about the government leaflet is disingenuous - it was legal spending as it was sent before the purdah period began on 25 May 2016 so enough of that old leaver talking point, please. It's just yet another doge and distraction.
Dom, I don't want to sound rude, but you need to give it up, I won't respond and this is not the right forum for lengthy political discussions.
 

Phil47uk

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
51,267
Reaction score
198,861
I could write more..A lot more but I think it's probably time to give this a rest for now as we don't want a full blown argument about British politics to get out of hand and tempers to fray and we owe it to other members in here who have no part In all this insanity and probably don't give a damn anyway...:laugh2:
I think we should simply agree to disagree as this could go on for a year and a day and nere the twain will ever meet.
We will just have to see how this unfolds .

I will say it's a shame it's come to this as it has divided families throughout the nation.
But, I have a bad feeling it could get a lot lot worse before it's finally resolved.
 
Last edited:

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
19,143
Final comment on this topic:

There is no ‘mutation’, just simply a cock-up by Parliamentarians more concerned with their own agenda than taking forward the democratic will of the people (more on this later).
Brexit changed from no chance of a no-deal to ramming it down the nation's throat in the face of strong Parliamentary opposition. You want to quibble about vocabulary instead of admitting the fact that Brexit is now crushing Parliamentary sovereignty instead of defending it. Quibbling over vocab does not address the fact that Brexit is now an anti-democratic attack on Parliament.

No it isn’t. The EU set out their conditions for us leaving. May negotiated. What she came up with was knocked back at every turn by Parliament. What is left is a scenario of no deals being brokered with the EU at the leaving point. Nothing is being misrepresented as any kind of mandate
This does not address the factual statement that the non-binding, advisory referendum result to leave is now being misrepresented as a mandate for no deal. The EU is constitutionally constrained in what it can offer the UK. May's deal is all the EU can offer. Leavers never quite seem to grasp this, and instead blame the EU and May, neither of whom could act outside the legal constraints on their options.

Why don’t those ‘Remain’ Parliamentarians get behind the Government’s attempts to sort something out? Because they are out to destroy the result of the Referendum, nothing less.
This does not address the factual statement that the government is now apparently preparing to force through a no mandate, no deal Bexit despite a solid and unwavering Parliamentary majority rejecting no deal. This is blatantly undemocratic and traduces the sovereignty of Parliament, restoration of which which was supposed to be the entire point of Brexit.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Minds are made up, facts are no longer relevant, if they ever were, and no deal will be happening on October 31.

I look forward to reviewing the consequences of no deal with those who supported leave over the next few years.
 




Top