Brexit

Not necessarily. I have been referring to how people said they felt so I don't see how you can separate the two. Especially when their actions are consistent with their words.


Only what was said was about how they felt, and how they then acted was consistent with how they said they felt.


As always, give an example.


Nope. It's a FACT that highly influential members of Parliament have been working with the EU for a long time. JS stated before the election that she had been working closely with Tories like Hammond, Grieve and Rory the Soy boy for over a year in a co-ordinated effort to stop Brexit. She also said that she had been working closely with members of the EU to try and stop Brexit. Do you not even remember the RA MP's who went to Brussels to meet with EU officials? Hell, Verhofstadt even spoke (at JS's invitation) at the Lib Dems Party Conference! It's hardly a secret that key members of Parliament were working with he EU. They don't even deny it. Indeed they seem proud of their actions. So no, it's not an opinion it's a fact.


Again you are wrong. People like Grieve and Hammond were elected on the promise they would support the government's position on Brexit which included leaving without a deal if an acceptable deal couldnt be reached. They then crossed the floor and told the media, and others, that they crossed the floor as they could NEVER support the UK leaving without a deal. The exact bloody opposite to what they had promised their elecorate they would do if they voted for them. So they DID go back on the manifesto they were elected on. Not an opinion but a very simple fact.


Well what else could they have done to prevent Brexit from happening that they didnt try? The only things that come to mind are table a motion of no confidence, form a government of their own and then either revoke article 50 or put forth a clayton's referendum where the choice is btw remain with some say or remain with no say. So perhaps technically they didnt do EVERYTHING they possibly could to stop Brexit but they did pretty much everything in practical terms to try and stop Brexit including things like the Benn Surrender Act.

Sorry, thought maybe the election campaign and result may have caused you to pop your head out of the sand.

You dont offer ANY evidence. All you have done is make more unsupported claims. Maybe you equate your feelings with evidence.

I would call it yet another example of you saying something and offering no 'evidence' to back up your assertions. I would call it you confusing your feelings with facts. I would call it bollocks.

Funny how under the last Parliament every attempt by the government to deliver Brexit was blocked, and yet under the new Parliament the move to finally leave the EU (and so respect the wishes of the people) is underway. And yet the last Parliament that successfully prevented all attempts by the government to leave the EU was apparently not controlled by remainers.

The first major issue re a FTA would appear to be access by EU member states to the UK's fishing grounds. How BJ deals with the EU's demands on this issue will say a lot about how fair dinkum he is and how committed he is to delivering the Brexit he promised the people.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the public felt versus what the politicians actually said regarding their own positions.



I could go for the low hanging fruit, like pointing out that calling the term 'crash-out' "emotive remainer speak", while being perfectly fine with using words like 'traitor' and 'remoaner', but where's the fun in that?

Unfortunately, any in-depth discussion on this would probably be better in it's own post so i will come back to this a bit later.



I had seen much talk about the EU meeting with certain members. I don't recall ever seeing anything about what those meetings were about, or what they resulted in. Can you provide any additional information to back up your assertion that the meetings were about stopping Brexit?



Again. This promise to support no deal if an acceptable deal couldn't be reached is a result, from what I can tell, of some interpretation of article 50. Such a promise is not within the Conservative manifesto, nor could I find a quote of this promise anywhere else. So, where is it?



You have a very short list on what is practical in government, don't you? And yet somehow you include the Benn Act as a practical way to stop Brexit, even though the only thing it did was force Johnson to request ONE extension until January 2020. Hardly a perpetual delay.

I don't typically let public opinion decide my beliefs or thought processes.

What exactly are you looking for? What evidence would be admissible to you?

You're the one who insisted that we stop talking about Yellowhammer...and Cameron...and you're the one who insisted that all of my examples were wrong. Instead of explaining why they were wrong, however, you simply restated your own opinion as a response. That does not help me understand why you think I'm wrong.

Both you and Bob have this tendency to say that I'm wrong without ever actually explaining why that is the case. You only reassert your own opinions as if saying them again proves that I'm wrong. Explain specifically why my points are 'bollocks' and I can address that accordingly.

Actually, unless I'm just hallucinating this, what you actually said here in posts 5, 9, 10 and here in post 16 is you very clearly asking for evidence to Jennifer's claim, and when she failed to deliver it you chose to quote experts instead to discredit her.

The pollies from the two main parties that attracted over 80% of the vote in 2017 all promised to respect the result of the people's vote. People FELT they were telling them the truth. Labour lied as did the rebel Tories. People who voted Labour or Conservative believing that their local MP actually meant what they said felt betrayed when it became obvious they had been lied to. So that's how many people felt re what MPs actually said regarding their position. This was a key reason why the Conservatives won such a big majority...as most Leave supporters felt that a Government under BJ was the only one likely to respect the result of the 2016 people's vote.


Traitor - a person who betrays someone or something.
So a very reasonable description of MP's who promised people to do one thing if elected and instead did the opposite.

Remoaner - a term used to differentiate btw those who voted remain who refuse to accept the result of the democratic process from those who voted remain but do accept the result of the democratic process.


In October for example a delegation was organised by the anti-Brexit 'Best for Britain' campaign group, and included former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve, former Lib Dem leader Vince Cable and Labour MP David Lammy. They met up with various EU representatives including with the European Parliament's Brexit co-ordinator Guy Verhofstadt. Specifically they stated that they wanted the EU to grant a Brexit delay in ALL circumstances as they tried to keep their hopes of a second referendum alive. Their second referendum was to be a choice btw remain with the UK having some small say in EU affairs or remain with the UK having no say. Either way the UK would remain a part of the customs union, the single market etc etc etc. There are just so many instances of people like JS proudly proclaiming how they were working with the EU to stop Brexit. Again, you even had Verhofstadt being invited to speak at the LDs party conference.


Fair dinkum. It's in their bloody 2017 election manifesto. Read the bloody thing. Seriously, we have had this conversation before. You claimed the Tories never promised in their election manifesto of 2017 for the country to leave the customs union and the single market. They did and I quoted their manifesto for you. At the same time you claimed the 2017 election manifesto never mentioned about leaving with no deal. Again I quoted their manifesto that proved you were wrong. It's bloody simple to check for yourself. Takes a couple of mins at most. Their manifesto specifically states that we believe that "NO deal is better than a bad deal". The rebel tories promised to support the Tory manifesto if elected. This included leaving with NO deal if necessary. They then crossed the floor and said the reason for doing so was because they could NEVER support ANY NO deal scenario. In short they went back on a key promise they had made to those who voted for them and happily in 2019 the electorate held them to account.


Have you even read the Benn surrender Act? I suggest not. It did a lot more than simply request one extension. Specifically it:
- required the Government to either reach a deal - or gain Parliament's approval for a No Deal Brexit by October 19.

Now the rebel alliance held the balance of power and were very clear that they would not support ANY deal BJ came up with even before they knew what it was. They were also strongly against ANY no deal exit.

- required the Prime Minister to write to the EU to request another extension if MPs didnt approve his deal or leaving on WTO terms. The date for this extension, as suggested in the bill, would be 31 January 2020 however the PM had just two days to accept ANY date proposed by the EU unless the majority of MPs objected.

So if for example the EU came back and said we will give you an extension until January 31, 2025 then the PM would have to accept this date unless the remainer parliament didnt like it.

The Benn surrender Act was just another tool used by remainer MPs to block the Governments attempts to leave and to delay, delay, delay until they could either revoke Article 50 or get a new Referendum through that would see the UK remain in the EU regardless of the outcome.

Here's a radical idea. How about a direct quote that supports your assertions or is that too much to ask.

Nope. With Yellowsnow for example I explained to you why i didnt share your views on the report. I offered facts to help you understand. You simply ignored those facts as you seemed determined to defend the report, it's authors and the way it was presented by remoaners. In the end I gave up trying to explain things to you. It's like with the rebel tories crossing the floor saying they would NEVER, under ANY circumstances, support a no deal scenario even though they were elected on the promise to do exactly that. Yet you simply refuse to accept this fact. Good for you. I however don't find the idea of endlessly reliving the same arguements all that appealing. It's why in the end I said that for me I had said enough about yellowsnow. If you don't want to accept fatcs re the report and it's authors then so be it.


Bollocks. I have EXPLAINED countless times why i think you are wrong re certain issues. Countless times.