OK then - how about the European Supreme Court being allowed to supercede our highest court?

I refer you to Silas's reply.

I refer you to Silas's reply.

 

Ah, but when we've incorporated EU laws into our statute books...

Ah, but when we've incorporated EU laws into our statute books...

British judges will be able to reach exactly the same conclusions.

British judges will be able to reach exactly the same conclusions.

 

I have no problem with that, but *they* should be the ultimate arbiters.

No surprise May can’t get anywhere with the EU, surely the only option available is for the people to decide whether it is The Deal or Stay in the EU. Of course Brexiteers will kick off. I wouldn’t be against a referendum again in the future as long as people actually know how they are going to deliver Brexit, as clearly nobody has a clue at this moment in time apart from fantasy living

I'd like a referendum but isn't it too late for one now seeing as we're out by 29 March?

 

Should be a no deal/May's deal/remain choice for the public. But that seems unlikely to happen.

I'd like a referendum but isn't it too late for one now seeing as we're out by 29 March?

 

Should be a no deal/May's deal/remain choice for the public. But that seems unlikely to happen.

The Article 50 process can be extended. The EU has indicated that it would be prepared to agree to this if requested. The legislation that says we leave on 29 March can be amended as part of the process of setting up a referendum.

 

The consequences of No Deal are potentially disastrous. At the moment, too many people think that "No Deal" means nothing will change. Of course, you would hope that would be addressed in the campaign. However, a sensible government would not allow such a potentially catastrophic choice to appear on the ballot paper. Sadly, we don't seem to have a sensible government.

I have no problem with that, but *they* should be the ultimate arbiters.

Don't you think that argument is just a little xenophobic? Perhaps the FA should refuse to accept any changes to the laws of football that come from FIFA on the grounds that foreigners were involved.

I'd like a referendum but isn't it too late for one now seeing as we're out by 29 March?

 

Should be a no deal/May's deal/remain choice for the public. But that seems unlikely to happen.

 

There is absolutely no way 'no deal' ends up on a ballot paper. Parliament won't allow it because they know the implications.

There is absolutely no way 'no deal' ends up on a ballot paper. Parliament won't allow it because they know the implications.

That probably is the most sensible option. Really don't want a no deal Brexit.

Don't you think that argument is just a little xenophobic? Perhaps the FA should refuse to accept any changes to the laws of football that come from FIFA on the grounds that foreigners were involved.

 

That sounds like strawman argument to me...

 

There is absolutely no way 'no deal' ends up on a ballot paper. Parliament won't allow it because they know the implications.

 

Pissing off the proportion of Brexiters who voted Leave on a no-deal basis? :unsure:

I wouldn't actually put it past the GBP to vote for a no deal Brexit if it was part of the ballot on a second referendum, come to think of it. :(

Sure. People actually voted to leave because they have a great desire to trade the ‘proper’ way under WTO rules and because they thought that going back to WW2 rationing was an acceptable outcome.

 

Don’t even try saying people voted because they wanted no deal Vid. It’s the result of failing to deliver Brexit and certainly not the ‘dream’ Norway options all the Leave campaigns were bandying about.

Sure. People actually voted to leave because they have a great desire to trade the ‘proper’ way under WTO rules and because they thought that going back to WW2 rationing was an acceptable outcome.

 

That claim about rationing is the biggest load of bullsh1t that Project Fear have ever come up with.

 

Don’t even try saying people voted because they wanted no deal Vid.

 

OK, i won't say it, but I am certainly thinking it... :heehee:

 

 

How many times have we proved you wrong on that now?! Even Nazi bloody Farage campaigned for a Norway option, saying "nobody is talking about leaving the single market". Ho hmm. So the Leavers neeever campaigned for a Hard Brexit. Sorry. Should I get the receipts AGAIN? Video or articles. Your choice.

That sounds like strawman argument to me...

Pissing off the proportion of Brexiters who voted Leave on a no-deal basis? :unsure:

 

Err you were the one arguing against parliament having a say on the deal, "Traitors" they, the British judges, were called by the gutter press for agreeing that we needed Parliamentary approval to kick it off and to approve it. left to your devices May would have had carte blanche to force through the current deal that you love so much.

 

Such short memories Brexteers have, especially those ones now voting against the deal agreed having argued that Parliament shouldnt have a vote. Hypocrites. You know the ones - those who failed to make the EU give up the 4 freedoms that everyone who wants those benefits has to sign up to?

 

There was not one single politician saying we would leave with No Deal during the referendum, nor were there any saying it would be fabulous for the country's well-being to leave with No Deal. Nor do they have any answers to resolve the problems that would 100% occur with No Deal. The morons still insist we will trade as if we were part of the EU. We won't. Trade will have to be renegotiated with all the countries who are members of the WTO who have said we can go jump in a lake if we think we are getting the same deals as the EU. Including the USA who have stated on record that they see an opportunity to steal our business while we are weak and isolated.

 

Of course if we had a 3-way vote, using your ongoing insistence that all 17.4 million voters, even the dead ones, will vote exactly the same way again then it wouldnt matter would it? All 17.4 million will all vote exactly the same way for No Deal, presumably, and not in any way accept the deal that everyone seems to hate but is the only one on offer, or stay in the EU as options because they won't have changed their minds.

 

So, yes, have as many options as anyone likes, it must therefore split the vote for non-No-Dealers amongst all the other options and give you an easy victory? I'm sure the previous lies and promises made, and the illegal campaign funding, had absolutely zero effect on how people voted so democracy will be seen to be done once again and we can all agree to crash out and crash the economy. I'm not bitter in any way about my holiday euros getting close to 1 for 1 this week either, no sirree, cos we are still in the EU and it can't POSSIBLY get any worse leaving without a deal at all, can it?

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't actually put it past the GBP to vote for a no deal Brexit if it was part of the ballot on a second referendum, come to think of it. :(

 

Yeah it is still a possibility, I am sure there are many who voted Leave originally who would vote for no deal just to metaphorically stick two fingers up at the EU which they see as an overbearing force who can't be reasoned with. And to stick two fingers up at those who wanted a second referendum too. There are also some still who believe that a no deal scenario won't be that bad economically.

 

I still think though that if there was a second referendum, many more people would vote to Remain than last time, and the May deal won't get much support from the public I wouldn't think if the two polar extremes of remain and no deal are on the ballot. So I think if there was a second referendum even with three options, the UK would vote to remain in the EU.

 

 

It has been announced today that we will have to apply for a visa and pay ¢7 to be able to visit EU countries if we cease to be a member. That, of course, means filling in a form. In other words, more of that red tape we were supposed to be able to get rid of if we left.

 

Still, we needn't worry about the fee. After all, Boris Johnson has offered to accept full responsibility for everything, so I'm sure he will offer to pay all the fees himself.

It has been announced today that we will have to apply for a visa and pay ¢7 to be able to visit EU countries if we cease to be a member. That, of course, means filling in a form. In other words, more of that red tape we were supposed to be able to get rid of if we left.

The European Commission confirmed we won't need a visa, just an ETIAS which is an ESTA-style form.

The European Commission confirmed we won't need a visa, just an ETIAS which is an ESTA-style form.

The fee and the form are the main issue, not the name of it. After decades of being able to move freely around Europe, we are about to lose that right. If you haven't already got the necessary permit, you will no longer be able to make a spur of the moment decision to, for example, hop on the Eurostar.