Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

Remainers can't agree what the status quo means. That's Remain's trouble. Some think it means no further integration, some think it means à la carte integration, and others insist it means inevitable further integration.

I addressed this here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75999587#Comment_75999587
but my questions were ignored.

Let me try again:

Are you aware of a division on the meaning of Remain which is even remotely comparable to that in the Leave front? I don't mean the bloke down the pub, I mean within the campaign and within prominent Remainers. For example, has Gordon Brown said that Remaining means much stronger integration while Vince Cable has said the opposite?
Or are you aware of u-turns in prominent remainers which are even remotely comparable to those of the Brexiters? Has, I don't know, Clegg gone from saying closer union to the opposite, or viceversa?

Can I have an answer to these points, please?

If you are so sure of what you have said, you will have plenty of factual, indisputable examples to prove me wrong. I very much look forward to those.

Or will you repeat what other Brexiters wrote a couple of days ago, i.e. how dare I demand answers?

SouthLondonUser

adindas wrote: »

Not satisfied, they try to challenge it in the court (Gina Miller) case
2. Yet they lost again

FAKE NEWS!

Gina Miller never tried to "reverse" anything! She simply made the point that, in a parliamentary democracy, it should be up to the parliament to make these crucial decisions. And, you know what, the Courts said she was right.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article-idUKKBN12Y11D

Did you not know (in which case it was sloppiness on your side) or did you know but didn't care (bad faith)? Which was it?

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

FAKE NEWS!

Gina Miller never tried to "reverse" anything! She simply made the point that, in a parliamentary democracy, it should be up to the parliament to make these crucial decisions. And, you know what, the Courts said she was right.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article-idUKKBN12Y11D

Did you not know (in which case it was sloppiness on your side) or did you know but didn't care (bad faith)? Which was it?

You must know well this phrase"
No news is good news"

About your phrase Fake News, it will depend how you see it. I am referring the impact on Remoaners

Indeed, On 3 November 2016, the High Court of Justice ruled in favour of Miller (Miller and Dos Santos) vs Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Good for her (well, her lawyer actually as she still paid the lawsuit bill), but was it good for remoaners

Just refer to the fact that there was a parliamentary voting "498 MPs voted for article 50 bill vs 114 MPs voting against article 50 it is a an overwhelming majority of 384 unprecedented

Was it good for Remoaners or more embarrass ??

SouthLondonUser

@adindas, you wrote: "Not satisfied, they try to challenge it in the court (Gina Miller) case"

It's not explicit what "it" means but it's quite clear you are implying the referendum result. That is factually false. Gina successfully argued it was the Parliament's job to decide on the matter.

AFAIK Neither Gina nor any prominent remainer had for a single second thought or said or written that the Parliament should not or would not respect the referendum result. The point was different, the point was it was the parliament's prerogative. If you know differently, please back it up.

So, as usual, you say something which is false, I expose it as fake news, you don;t admit it but try to shift the focus to whether it was good or bad for remainers. No comment.

Now, would you maybe like to comment on all the sexist and racist abuse Gina Miller was subject to?

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@adindas, you wrote: "Not satisfied, they try to challenge it in the court (Gina Miller) case"

It's not explicit what "it" means but it's quite clear you are implying the referendum result. That is factually false. Gina successfully argued it was the Parliament's job to decide on the matter.

AFAIK Neither Gina nor any prominent remainer had for a single second thought or said or written that the Parliament should not or would not respect the referendum result. The point was different, the point was it was the parliament's prerogative. If you know differently, please back it up.

So, as usual, you say something which is false, I expose it as fake news, you don;t admit it but try to shift the focus to whether it was good or bad for remainers. No comment.

Now, would you maybe like to comment on all the sexist and racist abuse Gina Miller was subject to?

No news is good news"

was it good for remoaners ?

"comment on all the sexist and racist abuse Gina Miller was subject to?
Well, I want to separate between Brexit and the sexist and racist abuse. I do not like the sexist and racist abuse on people either.

Just refer to the fact that there was a parliamentary voting "498 MPs voted for article 50 bill vs 114 MPs voting against article 50 it is a an overwhelming majority of 384 unprecedented more embarrass

cogito

mayonnaise wrote: »

And here we go again.
More fake news by cogito.

Let’s be exact about this. He was fined €30000 for insider dealing which most of us would think is fraud. Or shall we just call him a convicted criminal instead? Is that fake news?

So we have potentially two convicted criminals in the highest echelons of the EU. If the UK government wanted to appoint such individuals to the Treasury or Foreign Office, you would be organising street protests to stop it but because it’s the EU which is irreproachable or beyond criticism, it’s absolutely fine with you.

You need to open your nostrils to the stench of corruption emanating from Brussels.

ben501

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

AFAIK Neither Gina nor any prominent remainer had for a single second thought or said or written that the Parliament should not or would not respect the referendum result.

Maybe it's just a play on words, but didn't she write to Corbyn, explicitly mentioning that 'Remain' should be an option in the meaningful vote?


That to me is trying to get Parliament to overturn the result.

SouthLondonUser

ben501 wrote: »

Maybe it's just a play on words, but didn't she write to Corbyn, explicitly mentioning that 'Remain' should be an option in the meaningful vote?


That to me is trying to get Parliament to overturn the result.

We were talking about her legal challenge, which she won. That was about arguing that only the Parliament, and not the Government, could invoke Article 50.

Nov-2016
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/gina-miller-the-woman-behind-the-article-50-legal-challenge

Miller denies her lawsuit is trying to reverse the referendum. “I don’t think that’s possible,” she told the Guardian. Instead, she says it is an attempt to gain legal clarity over whether the government is entitled to trigger article 50, or whether this must be approved by parliament.

As for a second referendum, well, yes, I think there should be one. Because the lies of the Leave campaign have been exposed. because Brexiters can't agree what Brexit should mean. Because it is clearer than ever it far from a binary choice. Etc etc etc

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

We were talking about her legal challenge, which she won. That was about arguing that only the Parliament, and not the Government, could invoke Article 50.

As for a second referendum, well, yes, I think there should be one. Because the lies of the Leave campaign have been exposed. because Brexiters can't agree what Brexit should mean. Because it is clearer than ever it far from a binary choice. Etc etc etc

Do you honestly believe there was a good chance for a second referendum before the first referendum result was implemented ??

Those who are in favour of the second referendum, In the general election, you will never ask and it has never happened in the British history another general election before the first result is implemented. Why should it be different with the referendum. Keep in mind a nation referendum is the highest order in democracy.
In some countries referendum is even higher than the constitution.

If there was a second referendum "before the first brexit referendum on brexit is implemented" there might be a civil unrest, or worse a civil war.

Well come back to this thread in October 31, 2019.
Loser again, we will see...

SouthLondonUser

@adindas, you said remainers tried to challenge it in court.

I have proven to you this was factually false.

Yet you still fail to admit that what you wrote was fake news, instead trying to shift the focus to whether it was good or bad for remainers.

Why do you keep posting fake news?

And why do you dodge the question when it's exposed as such?

Why do you not admit it was fake news and apologise?