BREXIT thread

https://youtu.be/8HUZv_-5pk4

I can see why he failed in italy and failed as a manager

1 Like

Skilless brainless bluenose.

2 Likes

It’s a bit like Bullseye in reverse. You already have the grand prize of a car, but want to give it up for an as yet undetermined crap sum of money. It could be £100, it could be £1.

If your mother sends you down to the shops for a pounds worth of goods but she only gives you 50p , you can’t get a pounds worth of goods can you?

6 Likes

Depends how much you rob.

Ye can’t be doing that lads

Brexit is never going to happen. Will be pushed out and then they’ll have another election.

Same as Nice and Lisbon.

2 Likes

I agree

1 Like

The brexit lads will invoke the defiance of the Battle Of Britain and push it through

And will need another Marshall plan afterwards

Don’t think the yanks can afford it this time. Back then it was a fraction of their surplus.

The brexit lads will be calling on the old british bulldog spirit. That will solve everything.

They will repel the hordes of invading migrants

image

Bullshit spirit more like

You have to give them something to cling too. The former members of the empire will come in and save them.

1 Like

India can afford to throw them a few bones - for old times sake

Well our Indian Leo the Langer might

May accused of ‘utter hypocrisy’ after citing Welsh devolution as example of why referendum vote must be honoured

Downing Street released overnight some extracts from the speech Theresa May will give later this morning. Here are the highlights.

  • May will claim that, if her Brexit deal is rejected, no Brexit would be more likely than a no-deal Brexit. According to the briefing, May will say “that, based on the evidence of the last week, she now believes that MPs blocking Brexit is a more likely outcome than leaving with no deal.” This is an argument that Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, was making on Friday. In the past May has at times argued that the rejection of her deal could lead to either a no-deal Brexit or to no Brexit, and at other times argued that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March regardless. For her to effectively concede that parliament would block a no-deal Brexit (which is the implication of the briefing, although the direct quotes from her on this point have not yet been released) is significant.

  • She will say MPs have a duty to honour the referendum result, citing Welsh devolution as an example of how even narrow referendum wins must be honoured . She will say:

In June 2016, the British people were asked by MPs to take a decision: should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or should it leave?

In that campaign, both sides disagreed on many things, but on one thing they were united: what the British people decided, the politicians would implement.

In the run-up to the vote, the government sent a leaflet to every household making the case for remain. It stated very clearly: ‘This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.’

Those were the terms on which people cast their votes. If a majority had backed remain, the UK would have continued as an EU member state.

No doubt the disagreements would have continued too, but the vast majority of people would have had no truck with an argument that we should leave the EU in spite of a vote to remain or that we should return to the question in another referendum.

On the rare occasions when parliament puts a question to the British people directly we have always understood that their response carries a profound significance.

When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned …

Imagine if an anti-devolution House of Commons had said to the people of Scotland or Wales that despite voting in favour of a devolved legislature, parliament knew better and would over-rule them. Or else force them to vote again.

What if we found ourselves in a situation where parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?

Unfortunately for May, there is a glaring problem with the Welsh devolution analogy; the Conservatives, and May herself, did for some time refuse to accept the result. Politico Europe’s Jack Blanchard sums up the full awfulness of this error in his London Playbook briefing.

As history student Joe Oliver pointed out in this Twitter thread last night, the Tories argued vehemently against the creation of the assembly following the Welsh referendum. And among the hundreds of Tory MPs voting against the Government Of Wales Bill in 1997 was, erm, the newly elected member for Maidenhead, Theresa May. Indeed, as the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush points out, as late as 2005 the Tories were promising a second referendum — a People’s Vote, if you will — on whether to scrap the Welsh assembly. Which is all a bit awkward for No. 10.

Grimly predictable